Retrieve procedures for a specific ElevenLabs agent and branch to inspect configured conversational flows, with optional filtering by agent version.
List Procedures
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | Yes | Agent ID to get the procedure draft from | |
| branch_id | Yes | Branch ID to get the procedure draft from | |
| agent_version_id | No | The agent version ID to retrieve the procedure for. |
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, covering the safety profile. The description adds nothing beyond this — no mention of return shape, pagination, or scoping by agent/branch that would help an agent reason about 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 description is only two words, which is technically concise but reflects under-specification rather than efficiency. No front-loaded detail or useful structure is present.
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 3-parameter read tool with no output schema and many similarly named procedure/branch siblings, the description should clarify scope and distinguish it from related tools. It does neither, leaving routing ambiguity.
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%, with each of the three parameters documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description 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 'List Procedures' is essentially a restatement of the tool name list_procedures_route, offering no verb+resource distinction beyond the name itself. It does not differentiate from close siblings such as get_procedure_route, get_procedure_draft_route, or compile_procedures_route.
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 alternatives, nor any conditions or prerequisites mentioned. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.