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

@aiwerk/mcp-server-elevenlabs

by AIWerk
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

upload_file_route

Upload an image or PDF to a conversation for speech-to-text or voice cloning, using a local path or Base64 content.

Instructions

Upload File

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": {
      "conversation_id": "<conversation_id>"
    },
    "name": "upload_file_route"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
file_pathNoImage or PDF file to upload Local path. Required for this call.
file_base64NoBase64 contents for "file". Use this when the server cannot read your local disk.
file_filenameNoFilename to send for "file". Some endpoints infer the audio format from it.
conversation_idYes

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that, e.g. no note about required auth, size limits, or interaction with cancel_file_upload_route.

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?

Two words are technically concise and front-loaded, but the description is under-specified rather than efficient. It spends no budget on the information an agent needs.

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 four-parameter, multi-modality (image/PDF) upload tool with no output schema, the description is wholly inadequate. It omits what is uploaded, where it lands, or what happens on success or failure.

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 75%, close to but below the high-coverage baseline. The description names no parameters and does not clarify the file_path vs file_base64 file_path/file_base64 trade-off or why conversation_id is required, so it fails to compensate for the remaining 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 "Upload File" merely restates the tool name and adds no distinguishing detail. It does not clarify which file domain this covers (assets, songs, knowledge base documents) versus siblings like upload_asset, upload_song, or cancel_file_upload_route.

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 when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or mention of alternatives is provided. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.

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