@aiwerk/mcp-server-elevenlabs

list_assets

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve and search assets from your ElevenLabs account. Use cursor-based pagination and page size to browse results or filter by name with the search option.

Instructions

List Assets

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_assets"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`cursor`	No	Token from a previous response's `next_cursor`. Omit to fetch the first page.
`search`	No	Optional free-text search filter over asset names.
`page_size`	No	Number of assets to return.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile and read-only nature are clear. With annotations covering this, the bar is lower; the description adds nothing beyond the name, but it does not contradict the annotations. A baseline 3 is appropriate given annotations carry the behavioral load.

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?

At two words, it is concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficient. It fails to front-load any meaningful information, and 'List Assets' earns no place beyond the title.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does not explain return values, pagination behavior, or the shape of the asset list. Given the tool has three parameters and pagination (cursor/next_cursor), the description is inadequate for an agent to understand what to expect beyond what the schema provides.

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%, so the schema already defines cursor, search, and page_size with clear descriptions. The description adds no parameter information, but per the rule, when coverage is high, the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 'List Assets' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding any scope, verb nuance, or resource specificity. It does not distinguish from siblings like get_asset, upload_asset, or delete_asset_endpoint beyond the obvious list vs retrieve/single distinction.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_asset or upload_asset. There is no context, no prerequisites, and no exclusions mentioned.

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

Deploy Server