@aiwerk/mcp-server-elevenlabs

add_sharing_voice

Adds a shared voice from another user to your ElevenLabs account by specifying the public user ID, voice ID, and a new name.

Instructions

Add Shared Voice

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "public_user_id": "<public_user_id>",
      "voice_id": "<voice_id>",
      "new_name": "<new_name>"
    },
    "name": "add_sharing_voice"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`new_name`	Yes	The name that identifies this voice. This will be displayed in the dropdown of the website.
`voice_id`	Yes	Voice ID to be used, you can use https://api.elevenlabs.io/v1/voices to list all the available voices.
`bookmarked`	No
`public_user_id`	Yes	Public user ID used to publicly identify ElevenLabs users.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

D1.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds no behavioral context beyond those annotations, such as permission requirements, effects on the voice library, or reverting behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely short, but this reflects under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It is front-loaded only in the sense that it is a single phrase.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's mutation behavior, four parameters, lack of output schema, and dense sibling namespace, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what sharing a voice entails, what happens after adding, or how this differs from related voice-management tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 75%, with three of four parameters documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning or usage detail, and the undocumented optional bookmarked parameter is not addressed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description restates the tool name and title without adding a specific verb+resource distinction. It does not differentiate from siblings like add_voice, create_voice, or share_resource_endpoint, leaving the exact meaning of 'Add Shared Voice' unclear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is provided. The description gives no context for selecting this tool over other voice or sharing tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server