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

@aiwerk/mcp-server-elevenlabs

by AIWerk
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

get_pvc_voice_captcha

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve the captcha challenge for a professional voice clone using its voice ID, enabling you to complete verification before cloning or using the voice.

Instructions

Get Pvc Voice Captcha

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": {
      "voice_id": "<voice_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_pvc_voice_captcha"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
voice_idYesVoice ID to be used, you can use https://api.elevenlabs.io/v1/voices to list all the available voices.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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 nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, captcha expiration, or what the returned captcha token is meant for.

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?

Four words that merely echo the name, with no front-loaded purpose statement. This is under-specification rather than conciseness — nothing useful is conveyed.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain the return value, but it does not (is it a challenge, a token, a session ID from request_pvc_manual_verification?). For a cryptically named read operation, the definition leaves the agent without enough to invoke it confidently.

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 single voice_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including a pointer to the voices listing endpoint. Baseline 3 applies; the description adds no further parameter meaning.

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 is a verbatim restatement of the tool name with no added explanation. It never says what a 'PVC voice captcha' is, what it is for, or how it differs from the sibling verify_pvc_voice_captcha.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite information is given. The closely related verify_pvc_voice_captcha sibling is never mentioned or contrasted, leaving the agent to guess which to call.

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