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

@aiwerk/mcp-server-elevenlabs

by AIWerk
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

update_secret_route

Updates an existing Convai workspace secret by ID, enabling changes to its name, type, or value.

Instructions

Update Convai Workspace Secret

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": {
      "secret_id": "<secret_id>",
      "type": "<type>",
      "name": "<name>",
      "value": "<value>"
    },
    "name": "update_secret_route"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
typeYes
valueYes
secret_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already disclose the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the agent knows this is a non-idempotent write with external effects. The description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of overwrite behavior, required permissions, or what happens to unmentioned fields.

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?

At four words it is not verbose, but it is severely under-specified rather than concise; there is no front-loaded detail beyond the bare operation name.

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 mutation tool with four required parameters, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description is far too thin. Annotations only cover the safety profile; the description should at minimum clarify what updating a secret does and how the required fields are used.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across four required parameters (secret_id, type, name, value), and the description lists none of them. The description does nothing to compensate for the fully undocumented schema, leaving the agent with no meaning for any parameter.

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 and resource ('Update Convai Workspace Secret'), which is clearer than a bare tautology. However, it essentially rephrases the tool name and does not distinguish it from close siblings such as create_secret_route, delete_secret_route, or update_environment_variable.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_secret_route or update_environment_variable, nor any prerequisites. The agent must infer all usage context from the name alone.

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