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

@aiwerk/mcp-server-elevenlabs

by AIWerk
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

public_update_order

Update an existing ElevenLabs order's name using its order ID; this credit-spending call requires the new name.

Instructions

Update Order Spends ElevenLabs credits.

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>",
      "request": "<request>"
    },
    "name": "public_update_order"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
requestYes
order_idYesThe ID of the order.

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=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one piece of genuinely new context – that the call consumes ElevenLabs credits – but says nothing about permissions, reversibility of the update, or which fields can change.

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?

It is short, which is good, but the single sentence is grammatically garbled and conflates the action with a cost side-effect rather than front-loading the true purpose.

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 mutating, non-idempotent tool with a nested request object, no output schema, and only 50% param coverage, the description is too thin. An agent still cannot tell what gets updated, what the response looks like, or what authorization is required.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 50%, and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. It never explains that order_id identifies the target or that request carries the new name, so the nested request object is left entirely to the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a verb (Update) and resource (Order), so it is not a tautology, but the run-on phrasing 'Update Order Spends ElevenLabs credits' blurs the actual action into a cost note. It does nothing to distinguish this 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 and no mention of alternatives, even though close siblings (public_upsert_order_item, public_submit_order, public_remove_order_item) make routing ambiguous. The only guidance given is a credit-cost warning, which is not a usage condition.

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