Create a timed speaker segment in an ElevenLabs dubbing project using dubbing and speaker IDs plus start/end times. Spends credits; deprecated upstream.
Create A Segment For The Speaker Spends ElevenLabs credits. Deprecated upstream.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | No | ||
| end_time | Yes | ||
| dubbing_id | Yes | ID of the dubbing project. | |
| speaker_id | Yes | ID of the speaker. | |
| start_time | Yes | ||
| translations | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, and openWorld=true, so safety basics are covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations by disclosing that the operation spends ElevenLabs credits and is deprecated upstream. It does not, however, explain permissions, side effects on existing segments, or response behavior.
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 short and front-loads the core action. The deprecation and credit notes are valuable and do not feel padded. The awkward capitalization slightly harms readability but does not impede selection.
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?
For a six-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and low schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It does not explain how the required time and text parameters relate, what the translations parameter does, or what happens after creation. The deprecation and cost notes help, but key invocation details remain missing.
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?
Schema description coverage is only 33%, and the description does not compensate. It implies a speaker and a segment but gives no meaning for text, translations, start_time, or end_time. An agent must rely mostly on the partially documented schema.
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 gives a specific verb and resource: creating a segment for a speaker. It also names the cost model (ElevenLabs credits) and lifecycle status (deprecated upstream). However, it does not distinguish the tool from siblings such as dubbing_transcript_segment_add or create_speaker, and the clip/segment terminology is not reconciled.
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?
The description notes that the tool is deprecated upstream, which implicitly warns against use, but it never states when to use this tool instead of alternatives. It also provides no explicit exclusions or replacement tool guidance. This falls short of useful usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.