@aiwerk/mcp-server-elevenlabs

delete_transcript_by_id

DestructiveIdempotent

Remove a specific ElevenLabs transcript permanently by supplying its unique transcription ID. Use it to clear or manage stored speech-to-text transcripts.

Instructions

Delete Transcript By Id

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": {
      "transcription_id": "<transcription_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_transcript_by_id"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`transcription_id`	Yes	The unique ID of the transcript to delete

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

C2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds zero context beyond that — it does not state whether deletion is permanent, whether it cascades, or what happens on a non-existent ID, despite the destructive nature of the operation.

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?

Four words with no padding, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness — there is no front-loaded scope, no constraint, and nothing that earns the space a longer description would occupy.

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-style operation, the agent gets no information about permanence, side effects, or confirmation requirements from the description. With annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the definition is technically callable but leaves meaningful behavioral gaps.

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 only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents 'transcription_id'. The phrase 'By Id' in the description implies an ID parameter but adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the burden.

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 a verbatim restatement of the tool name/title, adding no information beyond the identifier itself. While the name does convey verb+resource, the description text itself is a tautology and offers no differentiation from the sibling get_transcript_by_id.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance whatsoever on when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist (e.g., get_transcript_by_id for reading). Prerequisites, permissions, and the distinction from other delete_* siblings are entirely absent.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server