@aiwerk/mcp-server-elevenlabs

get_test_invocation_route

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve the results of a specific ElevenLabs test invocation using its test invocation ID. Check status and output of agent or voice tests run through the API.

Instructions

Get Test Invocation

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": {
      "test_invocation_id": "<test_invocation_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_test_invocation_route"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`test_invocation_id`	Yes	The id of a test invocation. This is returned when tests are run.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 13, 2026

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, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond those annotations—no mention of what is returned, authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects.

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?

The two-word phrase is concise but under-specified rather than efficient; it omits any useful detail that would help an agent invoke the tool correctly. This matches the calibration example where extreme brevity without substance scores low on conciseness/structure.

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?

Given the simple schema and annotation coverage, the description is still too incomplete to route the agent effectively among many test-related siblings. It does not explain what a test invocation is, when to use this get-by-id operation, or how it relates to list_test_invocations_route.

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 parameter test_invocation_id is fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies when the schema carries the entire parameter burden.

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 'Get Test Invocation' simply restates the tool name and title without adding scope, distinguishing it from siblings like list_test_invocations_route, or clarifying what resource is retrieved. This is a tautology rather than a substantive purpose statement.

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 tool versus alternatives such as list_test_invocations_route, run_agent_test_suite_route, or other test-related siblings. No prerequisites, context, or exclusions are given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server