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

@aiwerk/mcp-server-elevenlabs

by AIWerk
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

delete_conversation_route

DestructiveIdempotent

Delete an ElevenLabs conversation by its ID to remove stored conversation data from your account.

Instructions

Delete Conversation

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": {
      "conversation_id": "<conversation_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_conversation_route"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
conversation_idYesThe id of the conversation you're taking the action on.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.5/5.0
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 partly covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of irreversibility, cascade effects on messages/transcripts, required permissions, or confirmation requirements for a permanently destructive action.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded phrase with no wasted words, but its brevity stems from under-specification rather than disciplined editing. It is concise but earns little.

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, irreversible-seeming delete with no output schema, the description should clarify what exactly is removed, whether deletion is permanent or soft, and any side effects. None of that is present, leaving a significant gap despite annotation coverage of the safety hints.

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 one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema itself documenting conversation_id. The description contributes no additional meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 phrase 'Delete Conversation' names a verb and a resource, so the basic operation is intelligible. However, it is effectively a human-readable restatement of the tool name with no scope or differentiator, leaving ambiguous boundaries against siblings such as delete_conversation_tag_route or delete_chat_response_test_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 indication of when this operation should be used, what preconditions exist (e.g. conversation must be resolved/closed), or which sibling to choose for related deletions. The description offers zero routing guidance.

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