@aiwerk/mcp-server-elevenlabs

public_remove_order_item

DestructiveIdempotent

Removes a specific item from an existing order using its order ID and item ID, so you can correct or update order contents.

Instructions

Remove Order Item

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": {
      "order_id": "<order_id>",
      "item_id": "<item_id>"
    },
    "name": "public_remove_order_item"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`item_id`	Yes	The ID of the order item.
`order_id`	Yes	The ID of the order.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that – it does not say what gets destroyed, whether removal is reversible, or what happens to the parent order, so it earns only minimal credit.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Three words is front-loaded and free of filler, but this is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness. The brevity leaves no room for the context an agent needs on a destructive mutation.

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?

For a destructive, open-world mutation with no output schema, the description should at minimum clarify what is deleted and any ordering/consistency implications for the parent order. Instead it provides nothing beyond a title-like phrase, leaving the definition materially incomplete.

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 both required parameters (order_id, item_id) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format, or relationship detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Remove Order Item' is essentially the tool name restated, which is a tautology per the rubric. It does name a verb and resource, but offers no scope, no differentiating detail, and nothing to distinguish it from siblings like public_upsert_order_item or public_submit_order.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. An agent gets no signal about when removal is appropriate versus updating the order via public_update_order or upserting items via public_upsert_order_item.

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

Deploy Server