Retrieve a specific ElevenLabs voice using its voice ID. Provide the voice_id to fetch voice details for use in text-to-speech and audio generation.
Get Voice
| 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. | |
| with_settings | No | This parameter is now deprecated. It is ignored and will be removed in a future version. |
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, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries a lower burden — but it adds nothing at all on top of them. It does not mention that this fetches a single voice by ID (versus listing), nor what happens with the deprecated with_settings parameter.
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?
Two words is not conciseness but under-specification — there is essentially no content to be front-loaded or structured. Nothing is wasted, but nothing is communicated either.
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 single-resource lookup with no output schema, the description should at least indicate that it returns one voice's details given an ID. With two parameters, one deprecated, and a crowded sibling namespace, the definition is too thin to guide correct selection.
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%, so baseline is 3; the voice_id description even points at the listing endpoint and the deprecated parameter is explicitly explained in the schema. The tool description itself 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 'Get Voice' merely restates the tool name in slightly different form and gives no scope, return content, or distinguishing detail. It does not differentiate this tool from near siblings such as get_voices, get_library_voices, get_user_voices_v2, get_voice_settings, or get_similar_voices_for_speaker.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many other voice-retrieval tools in the sibling list. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no routing hints are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.