Retrieves a specific snapshot from an ElevenLabs Studio project using its project ID and snapshot ID, enabling version review or restoration of project state.
Get Project Snapshot
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes | The ID of the Studio project. | |
| project_snapshot_id | Yes | The ID of the Studio project snapshot. |
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, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of what a snapshot contains, whether it includes archive/audio links, or any retrieval constraints.
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?
Three words with no padding, so it is concise, but its brevity comes at the cost of usefulness rather than being tight and informative.
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 read tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description still should convey what the snapshot represents and how it relates to the plural listing tool. Nothing here helps the agent decide or interpret the result.
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%, with both project_id and project_snapshot_id documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
The description merely restates the tool name ('Get Project Snapshot') without elaborating on what a snapshot is retrieved for or how it differs from siblings. With siblings like get_project_snapshots (plural list) and get_chapter_snapshot_endpoint, the description misses an easy chance to distinguish itself.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus get_project_snapshots or get_project_by_id. The agent is left to infer that this fetches a single snapshot by ID.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.