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

@aiwerk/mcp-server-elevenlabs

by AIWerk
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

delete_voice

DestructiveIdempotent

Remove a voice from your ElevenLabs account by providing its voice ID. Use it to clean up unused or unwanted voices via the API.

Instructions

Delete Voice

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": {
      "voice_id": "<voice_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_voice"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
voice_idYesVoice ID to be used, you can use https://api.elevenlabs.io/v1/voices to list all the available voices.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

D1.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations carry the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the agent knows this is a destructive, idempotent, open-world write. The description adds nothing beyond that — it does not mention irreversibility, cascading effects on agents/workspaces using the voice, or required permissions. Repeating the annotation-covered operation is the only signal present.

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?

Two words that merely echo the name and annotation title. Brevity here is under-specification, not efficient communication — there is no content to front-load.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive, open-world deletion tool with no output schema, the description must explain scope and consequences. It provides none, leaving the agent unable to determine what is destroyed or what state changes result.

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 schema itself documents voice_id including a pointer to the list endpoint. Baseline 3 applies; the description adds no extra meaning about the parameter.

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 Voice' restates the tool name and title with zero added specificity. It does not say what a 'voice' is in this system, what deletion entails, or distinguish this from sibling delete tools like delete_pvc_voice_sample, delete_sample, or delete_audio_isolation_history_item.

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 when-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, no prerequisites or warnings about irreversibility. The description gives the agent nothing to route on.

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