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

@aiwerk/mcp-server-elevenlabs

by AIWerk
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

delete_chapter_endpoint

DestructiveIdempotent

Deletes a chapter from an ElevenLabs Studio project using project_id and chapter_id, removing unwanted content from the project.

Instructions

Delete Chapter

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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>",
      "chapter_id": "<chapter_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_chapter_endpoint"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chapter_idYesThe ID of the chapter.
project_idYesThe ID of the Studio project.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already disclose destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as what gets deleted, whether associated data is affected, or any irreversibility warning.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

'Delete Chapter' is extremely short and front-loads the operation, but it is under-specified for a destructive tool. The terseness avoids waste, yet it lacks the structure and safety context that would make it appropriately sized.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool is simple with only two required parameters, and the schema plus annotations cover the structured details and safety profile. However, the description provides no usage context or consequences of deletion, leaving an agent with only the bare operation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both project_id and chapter_id are fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which matches the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear verb+resource combination: 'Delete Chapter.' It distinguishes the operation from siblings like add_chapter and edit_chapter, but it does not clarify scope or differentiate from other delete endpoints beyond the chapter resource.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, required permissions, or related operations such as edit_chapter or get_chapter_by_id_endpoint.

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