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

@aiwerk/mcp-server-elevenlabs

by AIWerk
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

get_dubbing_resource

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a dubbing resource by its ID to get details of a dubbing project.

Instructions

Get The Dubbing Resource For An Id. Deprecated upstream.

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": {
      "dubbing_id": "<dubbing_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_dubbing_resource"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dubbing_idYesID of the dubbing project.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact beyond annotations: that the tool is deprecated upstream. It does not cover auth requirements, rate limits, or return behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two short sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded and the deprecation warning, while terse, earns its place by flagging an important operational caveat.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a one-parameter read tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description is minimally sufficient: an agent knows to call it with a dubbing ID. However, it does not clarify what kind of dubbing resource is returned, which matters given the many dubbing siblings and the absence of an output schema.

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 sole parameter dubbing_id is already documented in the schema as "ID of the dubbing project." The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states a verb and resource ("Get The Dubbing Resource For An Id"), but "dubbing resource" is ambiguous among many dubbing-related siblings such as dubbing_project_get, dubbing_transcript_get, and get_dubbed_metadata. It does not distinguish this tool from those alternatives.

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?

The only usage signal is "Deprecated upstream," which warns that the tool is outdated but does not name a replacement or state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No explicit when/when-not guidance is provided.

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