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

@aiwerk/mcp-server-elevenlabs

by AIWerk
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

delete_agent_hold_audio_route

DestructiveIdempotent

Deletes an agent's hold audio using its ID. Use this to remove or replace hold music or messages for a specific agent.

Instructions

Delete Agent Hold Audio

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>"
    },
    "name": "delete_agent_hold_audio_route"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

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 destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — no indication of whether the hold audio must exist, whether the deletion affects live calls, or what auth/permissions are required.

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 with no wasted words, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness — a four-word phrase that duplicates the title provides no front-loaded value for the agent to act on.

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 destructive, open-world mutation endpoint with no output schema, the description should at minimum clarify what resource is removed and any side effects. None of that is present, leaving key behavioral details to the annotations alone.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ("The id of an agent. This is returned on agent creation."), so the schema fully documents it. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 "Delete Agent Hold Audio" is essentially the tool name restated with underscores removed. It names a verb and resource, but adds no information an agent couldn't already derive from the identifier itself, and does not distinguish it from sibling post_agent_hold_audio_route.

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 statement of when to use this tool, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as post_agent_hold_audio_route (setting the audio) or delete_agent_route. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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