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

@aiwerk/mcp-server-elevenlabs

by AIWerk
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

create_mcp_server_route

Create and configure a route to an MCP server by specifying its URL, name, transport, auth, and execution policies so its tools can be called.

Instructions

Create Mcp Server

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": {
      "config": "<config>"
    },
    "name": "create_mcp_server_route"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
configYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, covering the basic safety profile. The description adds nothing beyond that — no word on whether creation is persistent, what happens on duplicate names, or auth requirements for the config payload.

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?

It is short, but only because it is under-specified rather than efficiently phrased. A three-word phrase cannot be considered well-structured for a tool with a complex nested config object.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a creation tool whose sole parameter is a large nested config object, the description supplies none of the context an agent needs — not the effect of creation, nor the required sub-fields, nor the response. Annotations cover the safety hints but not the operational context.

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?

The single top-level parameter 'config' has no description, and the tool description provides no explanation of it either. The nested properties do carry their own schema descriptions, but the description does nothing to compensate for the undocumented top-level wrapper.

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 "Create Mcp Server" essentially restates the tool name and title without adding scope, resource location, or any distinguishing detail from siblings like create_auth_connection or update_mcp_server_config_route. It is a tautology rather than a clarifying statement of purpose.

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_mcp_server_config_route (for changing an existing server) or list_mcp_servers_route. No prerequisites, no context about where the server gets registered.

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