Retrieve a specific language target from an ElevenLabs dubbing project by providing the project and language IDs, so you can inspect or manage that dubbed language track.
Get Dubbing Language Target
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes | Identifier of the parent dubbing project. | |
| language_id | Yes | Identifier of the language target to fetch. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond those structured hints, such as error behavior, access constraints, or what a 'target' represents.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded phrase with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple GET operation, though its extreme terseness leaves little context beyond the operation name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a low-complexity, two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and rich read-only annotations, the definition is minimally complete. However, it does not clarify what a dubbing language target contains or how it relates to the parent project, which leaves a small context gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and both project_id and language_id are documented directly in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate when structured fields already do the work.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (Get) and resource (Dubbing Language Target), making the core operation understandable. It does not differentiate from sibling tools such as dubbing_language_list, dubbing_language_create, or dubbing_language_delete, but it is clear enough for an agent to identify it as a single-resource fetch.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention dubbing_language_list for enumeration or dubbing_project_get for parent project data, nor does it state prerequisites beyond the schema's required IDs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.