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

@aiwerk/mcp-server-elevenlabs

by AIWerk
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

get_projects

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists Studio Projects from your ElevenLabs account, returning all available projects so you can browse, select, or manage them.

Instructions

List Studio Projects

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_projects"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that — no pagination behavior, no result ordering, no scope of 'Studio Projects' against other project types. With annotations doing all the work, the description contributes no additional behavioral context.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single three-word phrase that is front-loaded and wastes nothing. It is arguably too terse rather than too long, but as conciseness it is efficient.

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 zero-parameter list tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It still leaves open whether results are paginated, how many projects are returned, or which project types count as 'Studio Projects', which an agent would want before calling.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter information the description needs to supply and none is missing. No syntax, format, or filtering detail is warranted for a parameterless call.

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?

The description gives a clear verb ('List') and a specific resource ('Studio Projects'), so an agent knows exactly what entity it operates on. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the many sibling list/get tools (e.g. get_project_by_id, list_assets), nor does it state the scope of the listing. Clear but undifferentiated.

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 guidance on when to use this versus get_project_by_id or the other project-related endpoints, and no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned. Usage must be inferred entirely 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