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

@aiwerk/mcp-server-elevenlabs

by AIWerk
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

dubbing_target_transcript_segments_update

Update translated text for selected segments in a dubbing project's target language transcript. Provide project, language, and segment edits; consumes ElevenLabs credits.

Instructions

Update Dubbing Target Transcript Segments 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>",
      "segments": "<segments>"
    },
    "name": "dubbing_target_transcript_segments_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
segmentsYesMap of segment ID to the translation edit to apply to that segment. At least one entry and at most 500.
project_idYesIdentifier of the dubbing project.
language_idYesIdentifier of the language target.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's one additive fact -- that the call spends ElevenLabs credits -- is genuinely useful context not present in the annotations. However, it says nothing about whether the operation is synchronous, triggers re-dubbing, or why non-idempotency matters for credit consumption.

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 short, but the two clauses are jammed into one unpunctuated string ('Segments Spends ElevenLabs credits'), which reads as a formatting defect rather than deliberate brevity. The cost warning should be its own sentence, front-loaded or clearly separated.

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 that consumes credits and has no output schema, the description is too thin: it does not say what the update affects, whether it kicks off regeneration or a new dub, or what the caller should expect on success. The credit warning is the only substantive content.

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%: project_id, language_id, and the segments map (with the 1-500 entry bound) are all documented in the schema itself. The description contributes nothing about parameter meaning. Per the high-coverage baseline, 3 is the correct score.

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 largely restates the tool name ('Update Dubbing Target Transcript Segments' vs. dubbing_target_transcript_segments_update) without adding a verb+resource explanation an agent couldn't already infer. The only new information is the trailing credit-cost note. It also fails to distinguish this from the very similar sibling dubbing_target_transcript_segment_update (singular) or dubbing_transcript_segments_update.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives despite several near-identical siblings (segment vs. segments updates, regenerate, transcript_get). The agent must guess whether to use this bulk update or the single-segment variant.

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