Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@aiwerk/mcp-server-elevenlabs

@aiwerk/mcp-server-elevenlabs

by AIWerk
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

add_tool_route

Adds a new MCP tool to an agent's configuration, specifying server details, parameters, and execution mode for API calls.

Instructions

Add Tool

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": {
      "tool_config": "<tool_config>"
    },
    "name": "add_tool_route"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tool_configYesConfiguration for the tool
response_mocksNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

D1.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no further behavioral context such as side effects, required IDs, approval policy impact, or what configuration gets created.

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 under-specified rather than efficiently concise. It is not front-loaded with useful information and does not earn its place for a complex tool with a large nested configuration schema.

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?

For a tool that accepts a sizeable nested tool_config object with many optional fields and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. An agent would need to infer almost everything from the schema and annotations.

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 50%, and the description provides no parameter information at all. It does not compensate for the undocumented top-level response_mocks parameter or clarify the nested tool_config fields.

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 is just "Add Tool", which essentially restates the tool name and annotation title "Add Tool Route" without adding scope, resource detail, or sibling differentiation. It does not distinguish this from update_tool_route, delete_tool_route, or get_tool_route.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_tool_route or add_mcp_tool_config_override_route. The description provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools