@aiwerk/mcp-server-elevenlabs

dubbing_target_transcript_segment_update

Edit a specific transcript segment in a dubbing project's target language to correct translations. Requires project, language, and segment IDs; consumes ElevenLabs credits.

Instructions

Update Dubbing Target Transcript Segment Spends ElevenLabs credits.

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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>",
      "language_id": "<language_id>",
      "segment_id": "<segment_id>"
    },
    "name": "dubbing_target_transcript_segment_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`project_id`	Yes	Identifier of the dubbing project.
`segment_id`	Yes	Identifier of the segment to edit.
`language_id`	Yes	Identifier of the language target.
`translation`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, and openWorld=true. The description adds a useful credit-cost warning, but does not explain replacement semantics, null translation behavior, or what else changes in the segment after update.

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?

It is very short and front-loads the action, but the sentence is malformed and ambiguous ('Update ... Segment Spends ElevenLabs credits'), which weakens structure despite the lack of fluff.

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 non-idempotent mutation with no output schema and incomplete parameter descriptions, the definition omits what fields are updated, how null translation behaves, and what the update affects. Only the credit-cost warning is provided.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema documents 3 of 4 parameters, but the translation parameter is undocumented and nullable while the description provides no field-level meaning. The description does not compensate for the missing parameter semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('Dubbing Target Transcript Segment'), and adds a credit-consumption note. It does not distinguish this singular segment update from sibling dubbing_target_transcript_segments_update or dubbing_transcript_segment_update, so sibling differentiation is missing.

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 guidance on when to use this instead of sibling update, regenerate, delete, or plural-segment tools. The only additional statement is a cost warning, not a usage condition or alternative-selection rule.

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

Deploy Server