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

@aiwerk/mcp-server-elevenlabs

by AIWerk
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

translate

Converts all or selected dubbing segments into target languages, spending ElevenLabs credits.

Instructions

Translates All Or Some Segments And Languages Spends ElevenLabs credits. Deprecated upstream.

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": {
      "dubbing_id": "<dubbing_id>",
      "segments": "<segments>",
      "languages": "<languages>"
    },
    "name": "translate"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
segmentsYesTranslate only this list of segments.
languagesYes
dubbing_idYesID of the dubbing project.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover safety hints, and the description adds two important behaviors beyond them: it spends ElevenLabs credits and is deprecated upstream. This is useful cost/deprecation context, though mutation specifics remain unstated.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, with both sentences carrying useful information. The first sentence is grammatically awkward and lacks punctuation, but it is still concise and readable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a deprecated, cost-incurring translation tool with no output schema, the description includes critical cost and deprecation warnings. However, it lacks usage alternatives and parameter detail, leaving gaps for an agent choosing among many sibling tools.

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 coverage is moderate at 67%, and the description does not clarify the parameters beyond loosely naming segments and languages. It does not explain the languages array format or how segments and languages interact, so it adds little beyond the schema.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a clear verb and resource: translating segments and languages. It does not distinguish itself from sibling dubbing/transcript tools, but the core action is identifiable.

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?

The only usage signal is 'Deprecated upstream,' which warns against use but does not name a replacement or explain when this tool should still be used. No when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided.

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