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

@aiwerk/mcp-server-elevenlabs

by AIWerk
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

get_voice_settings

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve configuration settings for a specific ElevenLabs voice by providing its voice ID. Use to inspect or replicate voice parameters for consistent speech synthesis.

Instructions

Get Voice Settings

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_voice_settings"
  }
}

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

C2.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read. The description adds nothing beyond that, but with annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is adequate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely short and front-loaded, but it is arguably under-specified rather than concise; still, it contains no wasted words.

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 a read-only tool with no output schema and a mere two-word description, the definition is incomplete: it does not clarify what settings are returned, whether there are permission requirements, or how it relates to the many sibling voice tools. An agent would need to open the schema and guess the rest.

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 'voice_id' is fully documented in the schema, including a link to list voices. The description adds no parameter meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 Voice Settings' is a tautology: it merely restates the tool name with no additional specificity about what 'voice settings' encompasses (stability, similarity, style, etc.) or how it differs from siblings like get_voice_settings_default or edit_voice_settings.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_voice_settings_default (for default settings) or edit_voice_settings (for mutation). The description gives no context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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