@aiwerk/mcp-server-elevenlabs

create_secret_route

Create a Convai workspace secret to store API keys or credentials in ElevenLabs; specify the secret type, name, and value.

Instructions

Create Convai Workspace Secret

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": {
      "type": "<type>",
      "name": "<name>",
      "value": "<value>"
    },
    "name": "create_secret_route"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`type`	Yes
`value`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the basic safety profile. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of required auth, what a 'type' entails, whether value is stored encrypted, or what happens on name collisions.

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 single sentence is short but under-specified rather than concise; it omits all operational detail and wastes no words only because it says almost nothing. It is not misleading, but it does not earn its place as the sole guidance.

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 mutation tool creating a workspace secret with three undocumented required parameters and no output schema, the description is far too thin. Annotations cover the safety profile, but the agent still lacks information on parameter meaning and any side effects or prerequisites.

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 0% for three required parameters (name, type, value). The description does not compensate at all — it never mentions that 'type' selects a secret kind or that 'value' is the secret payload, so an agent gets no guidance on accepted type values or value 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 ('Create') and resource ('Secret') and scopes it to 'Convai Workspace', which distinguishes it from generic secret tools in other systems. However, it adds no detail about what a secret route is or how it differs from siblings like update_secret_route or create_environment_variable.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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 create_environment_variable or update_secret_route, nor any prerequisites, permissions, or conditions described. The agent is left to infer everything from the name alone.

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

Deploy Server