List Dubs. List the dubs you have access to.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cursor | No | ||
| account | No | ||
| order_by | No | ||
| page_size | No | ||
| dubbing_models | No | ||
| dubbing_status | No | ||
| order_direction | No | ||
| creation_sources | No | ||
| dubbing_statuses | No | ||
| filter_by_creator | No | ||
| target_language_codes | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only minor context about access scope ('you have access to') but does not describe pagination, response format, or any other behavior beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short but redundant; 'List Dubs' and 'List the dubs you have access to' essentially repeat the same information. It could be one sentence, but the redundancy wastes the agent's attention.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 11 parameters and no output schema, this description is severely underspecified. It does not explain what a 'Dub' is, how filtering works, or what the return structure looks like, making it inadequate for an agent to use effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 11 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaning to any parameter. The schema only provides types and enums, so the agent is left without guidance on what each parameter does, such as 'cursor' or 'order_by'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'Dubs', and adds 'you have access to' which clarifies scope. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling list tools like elevenlabs_dubbing_project_list, so it lacks differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus other list/get tools, nor any prerequisites or alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.