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

@aiwerk/mcp-server-elevenlabs

by AIWerk
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

delete_mcp_server_route

DestructiveIdempotent

Deletes an MCP server by its ID, removing it from the ElevenLabs MCP server list when it is no longer needed.

Instructions

Delete Mcp Server

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": {
      "mcp_server_id": "<mcp_server_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_mcp_server_route"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
mcp_server_idYesID of the MCP Server.

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, and openWorldHint=true, so the essential safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond the name—no statement about permanence, cascading effects on related routes/tools, or auth requirements. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, the low score reflects the absence of any extra context.

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?

Extremely short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than truly concise. It earns no penalty for length but also conveys minimal structure.

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, idempotent tool in a large toolset with no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits any behavioral or operational context beyond what annotations and the schema already state.

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% and includes a description for mcp_server_id, so the schema fully documents the single parameter. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 description states a verb+resource ('Delete Mcp Server'), which is clear enough about what it does, but it uses the entity name rather than the tool's route concept and adds no scope or sibling differentiation. Given the huge sibling list containing many 'delete_*' tools, it does not help an agent distinguish this from the others.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, no mention of alternatives. The agent gets no help deciding between this and sibling delete tools or list_mcp_servers_route/get_mcp_route.

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