Fetch the visual waveform of a specific voice sample using its voice ID and sample ID, so you can inspect audio shape without downloading the file.
Retrieve Voice Sample Visual Waveform
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| voice_id | Yes | Voice ID to be used, you can use https://api.elevenlabs.io/v1/voices to list all the available voices. | |
| sample_id | Yes | Sample ID to be used |
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=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds nothing on top of that — no mention of what the waveform is (image bytes, URL, JSON points), rate limits, or auth requirements.
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?
It is a single short phrase with zero padding, so it is not verbose. However, it is under-specified rather than efficient — the brevity comes from omission, not from disciplined writing.
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-only retrieval tool with no output schema, the description should at minimum indicate what a 'visual waveform' return looks like (image, data array, URL). None of that is present, leaving the agent unable to anticipate the response shape.
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 voice_id and sample_id documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning.
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 'Retrieve Voice Sample Visual Waveform' is essentially a restatement of the tool name get_pvc_sample_visual_waveform, adding no verb or scope beyond the title. It does implicitly distinguish itself from sibling get_pvc_sample_audio by the word 'visual', but the agent gains no explanatory content.
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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance is provided. With siblings like get_pvc_sample_audio and get_pvc_sample_speakers, the agent is left to infer which retrieval variant to call.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.