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

@aiwerk/mcp-server-elevenlabs

by AIWerk
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

duplicate_agent_route

Copy an existing ElevenLabs agent by its agent_id, optionally assigning a new name, to quickly create a reusable duplicate for editing or deployment.

Instructions

Duplicate Agent

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": {
      "agent_id": "<agent_id>"
    },
    "name": "duplicate_agent_route"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNo
agent_idYesThe id of an agent. This is returned on agent creation.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so safety is partly covered structurally. The description adds nothing, though: it does not say whether the duplicate copies settings, knowledge base links, or triggers side effects, which matters for a non-idempotent mutation.

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 with no structure. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than economy; nothing is front-loaded because nothing is stated.

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?

The tool is a non-idempotent write with an undocumented optional parameter, no output schema, and no explanation of what the duplicated result contains. Given that complexity, the description is far too thin to let an agent invoke it confidently.

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?

Schema coverage is 50%: agent_id is documented as 'the id of an agent', but the optional 'name' parameter has no description anywhere. The tool description does not compensate by explaining what name does (e.g. naming the clone or defaulting to the original name).

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 'Duplicate Agent' merely restates the tool name. It conveys the verb (duplicate) and object (agent route), but adds no scope, no detail on what gets copied, and no differentiation from siblings like create_agent_route or create_agent_draft_route.

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 mention of prerequisites (e.g. the referenced agent must exist), and no routing to alternatives such as create_agent_route for building a fresh agent. The agent is left to infer everything from the name.

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