Skip to main content
Glama
AIWerk

@aiwerk/mcp-server-elevenlabs

by AIWerk

update_agent_response_test_route

Idempotent

Update an existing agent response test by test_id to change success conditions, failure or success examples, evaluation models, or simulation settings.

Instructions

Update Agent Response Test

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNo
typeNo
test_idYesThe id of a chat response test. This is returned on test creation.
environmentNo
chat_historyNo
evaluation_modelNo
failure_examplesNoNon-empty list of example responses that should be considered failures
parent_folder_idNo
success_examplesNoNon-empty list of example responses that should be considered successful
tool_mock_configNoSimulation/preview-side config: tools are identified by IDs, resolved to names at runtime.
dynamic_variablesNoDynamic variables to replace in the agent config during testing
success_conditionNo
success_conditionsNoList of prompts that evaluate whether the simulation was successful. If provided, all criteria are evaluated and merged into a final result. Capped at the maximum number of evaluation criteria.
simulation_scenarioNoDescription of the simulation scenario and user persona for simulation tests.
tool_mock_overridesNoTest-specific response mocks, keyed by tool ID. Applied ahead of the tool's shared mocks and only within this test. Only take effect for tools that are mocked (see tool_mock_config).
simulated_user_modelNo
simulation_max_turnsNoMaximum number of conversation turns for simulation tests.
tool_call_parametersNo
check_any_tool_matchesNo
simulation_environmentNo
from_conversation_metadataNo
conversation_initiation_sourceNoEnum representing the possible sources for conversation initiation.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

D1.3/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world mutation, and the description adds nothing on top — no note on which fields are replaced vs preserved, no auth or permission context, no side effects. The description carries zero behavioral value beyond the structured hints.

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?

It is short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness — a single noun phrase that omits everything the agent needs before invoking a 22-parameter mutation.

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

Completeness1/5

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

For a complex mutation with 22 params, nested objects, and no output schema, the definition is completely inadequate. An agent cannot determine what the tool changes, what the required test_id refers to, or what happens to unspecified fields.

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

Parameters1/5

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

With 22 parameters and only 45% schema description coverage, the description was the place to explain fields like success_conditions, tool_mock_overrides, or from_conversation_metadata, but it names none of them. Nothing compensates for the coverage gap.

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 is essentially a restatement of the tool name: 'Update Agent Response Test'. It implies a verb and resource but adds no scope, no indication of what fields can be updated, and no differentiation from siblings like create_agent_response_test_route, get_agent_response_test_route, or delete_chat_response_test_route.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to alternative tools. An agent has nothing to distinguish this update route from the create/get/delete/run test routes in the sibling list.

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