Retrieve metadata for a specific ElevenLabs resource by supplying its ID and type. Access details like name, status, and configuration for voices, projects, and more.
Get Resource
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| resource_id | Yes | The ID of the target resource. | |
| resource_type | Yes | Resource type of the target resource. |
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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond those annotations, such as what metadata is returned for each resource type or any pagination behavior.
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?
The two-word description is not concise in a helpful sense; it is under-specified for a tool with two required parameters and broad applicability. It lacks front-loaded, actionable information.
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?
Given the complexity of fetching metadata across many resource types and the absence of an output schema, the description should clarify what metadata is returned or any type-specific variations. It does not, leaving a significant gap in contextual completeness.
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%, including a detailed enum for resource_type, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning, which establishes the baseline score of 3.
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 'Get Resource' is nearly a tautology of the tool name 'get_resource_metadata' and omits the crucial 'metadata' aspect. It does not distinguish this generic resource-fetching tool from the many other get_* siblings that retrieve specific resource types.
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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or context. The description offers no usage instructions at all.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.