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

@aiwerk/mcp-server-elevenlabs

by AIWerk
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

update_tool_route

Update a tool's configuration to modify its parameters, API schema, or execution policy, adapting it to new requirements.

Instructions

Update Tool

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": {
      "tool_id": "<tool_id>",
      "tool_config": "<tool_config>"
    },
    "name": "update_tool_route"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tool_idYesID of the requested tool.
tool_configYesConfiguration for the tool
response_mocksNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

D1.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The annotations already disclose that this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world mutation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as what gets updated, side effects, permission requirements, or whether partial config replacement occurs.

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?

The two-word description is not usefully concise; it is under-specified. It neither front-loads meaningful constraints nor earns its place by conveying anything beyond the tool name.

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 mutation tool with a nested configuration object, required parameters, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It leaves an agent unable to understand what the tool updates or how to use it correctly.

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 67% and the schema documents tool_id and the nested tool_config object, but the description contributes no parameter meaning at all. With moderate coverage and a complex nested config, "Update Tool" does not compensate for the remaining undocumented fields such as response_mocks.

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?

"Update Tool" restates the tool name and annotation title without adding specificity. It gives only a generic verb and resource, so an agent cannot distinguish this from sibling update routes beyond the obvious update-versus-get/add/delete distinction.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool, what prerequisites are required, or when to prefer alternatives such as add_tool_route, delete_tool_route, or get_tool_route. It is a bare purpose statement with no usage context.

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