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

@aiwerk/mcp-server-elevenlabs

by AIWerk
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

create_agent_deployment_route

Create or update an agent deployment by supplying an agent ID and deployment requests, so you can manage live ElevenLabs agent configurations.

Instructions

Create Or Update Deployments

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": {
      "agent_id": "<agent_id>",
      "deployment_request": "<deployment_request>"
    },
    "name": "create_agent_deployment_route"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
agent_idYesThe id of an agent. This is returned on agent creation.
deployment_requestYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare the operation is not read-only, not idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds only 'Create Or Update Deployments' and does not explain side effects, required permissions, or what an update changes.

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 terse and essentially restates the title without adding context. It is under-specified rather than usefully concise.

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 mutation tool with a nested request object and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It omits what a deployment request contains, how agent_id is used, and what behavior to expect when creating or updating deployments.

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 only 50%, and the description provides no parameter meaning at all. The nested deployment_request structure and required agent_id are left to the schema, which itself does not fully document the deployment request format.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states a verb and resource ('Create Or Update Deployments'), but it omits the agent scope and route nature conveyed by the tool name. It does not distinguish this tool from the many other creation/update siblings, leaving the agent to infer what a deployment route is.

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. It does not explain when to create versus update, nor does it name related tools or prerequisites.

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