Creates a speech engine configuration for ElevenLabs agents, defining TTS, ASR, turn detection, and privacy settings.
Create Speech Engine
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asr | No | ||
| tts | No | ||
| vad | No | ||
| name | No | Name of the speech engine | |
| tags | No | Tags for categorization | |
| turn | No | ||
| privacy | No | ||
| language | No | Language for the speech engine | |
| overrides | No | ||
| call_limits | No | ||
| conversation | No | ||
| speech_engine | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, which provides a basic safety profile. However, the description adds no behavioral context such as what gets created, whether the operation is reversible, authentication requirements, or side effects.
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?
At three words, it is not wasteful in length, but it is severely under-specified rather than concise. A helpful description would need more content to earn its place.
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 tool with 12 parameters, deep nested objects, no output schema, and sparse schema coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It gives an agent no meaningful context for correct invocation.
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 25% across 12 parameters, including many complex nested objects. The description provides zero parameter information and therefore fails to compensate for the significant documentation gap.
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 is a tautology: it merely restates the tool name/title as 'Create Speech Engine' and adds no specific scope, resource detail, or sibling differentiation. It does not distinguish itself from update_speech_engine, delete_speech_engine, or get_speech_engine.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are provided. The agent must infer from the name alone that this creates a speech engine rather than updating or retrieving one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.