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

@aiwerk/mcp-server-elevenlabs

by AIWerk
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

delete_speech_engine

DestructiveIdempotent

Remove a speech engine from your ElevenLabs account by its ID. Provide the speech_engine_id (seng_ or agent_ prefix) to complete deletion.

Instructions

Delete Speech Engine

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": {
      "speech_engine_id": "<speech_engine_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_speech_engine"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
speech_engine_idYesThe speech engine ID (accepts seng_ or agent_ prefix)

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, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known without the description. The description contributes nothing extra - no note on permanence, what happens to agents still referencing the engine, or required permissions - so it fails to add value over structured data.

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 but for the wrong reason: the two-word string is a restatement of the title rather than a load-bearing sentence. Brevity here reflects under-specification, not efficiency.

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, irreversible delete operation with no output schema, the description should at minimum warn about permanence and side effects. It supplies none of that, leaving the agent with only the annotated hints and the schema.

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 the single parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the 'seng_ or agent_' prefix acceptance. With no param info in the description, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 is the tool name restated verbatim: 'Delete Speech Engine'. While that is technically a verb+resource, it adds no information beyond the title and does nothing to distinguish this tool from the many other delete_* siblings in the list.

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 guidance on when to use this tool rather than alternatives (e.g., update_speech_engine or get_speech_engine), no prerequisites, and no conditions. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the verb.

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