@aiwerk/mcp-server-elevenlabs

delete_finetune

DestructiveIdempotent

Delete a music finetune by its ID to remove it from ElevenLabs. This helps manage unused or obsolete finetune models.

Instructions

Delete Music Finetune

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": {
      "finetune_id": "<finetune_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_finetune"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`finetune_id`	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?

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that - no note on irreversibility, whether the underlying model/data is reclaimed, or permission requirements. It does not contradict the annotations.

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?

It is a single short phrase with zero filler, so nothing is wasted, but at this length the brevity comes at the cost of specification rather than being genuinely tight writing. Structure is acceptable; substance is thin.

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 mutation with no output schema, no annotation-independent detail, and an undocumented required parameter, the description leaves too much unspecified. An agent cannot tell what is destroyed, whether the action is recoverable, or what identifier format to supply.

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% and the single parameter finetune_id is an undocumented string. The description provides no clarification of what identifier is expected or where it comes from, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 Music Finetune' essentially restates the tool name delete_finetune, adding only the qualifier 'Music'. It names a verb and a resource, but there is no differentiation from siblings such as get_finetune, get_finetunes, or update_finetune, and it is vague about whether a finetune model, job, or dataset is being removed.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. With four finetune-related siblings (create_finetune, update_finetune, get_finetune, get_finetunes) in the toolset, an agent gets no help on routing; it can only infer usage 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