Retrieve voices from your ElevenLabs library with their voice IDs. Search by name, description, or label and set page size to find the right voice for dialogue, narration, or audio generation.
Voices in your own library (premade, cloned, designed and added from the shared library), with their voice_id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| search | No | Name, description or label to search for | |
| page_size | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing beyond return content ('with their voice_id'). It omits pagination behavior despite a page_size parameter (default 30, max 100), does not state ordering, and does not confirm the operation is a safe read. For a list endpoint with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single dense fragment with zero padding; the library-scope constraint is front-loaded. It loses a point only because the fragment form leaves the action ('list') implicit and reads as a noun phrase rather than an instructional sentence.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a low-complexity, zero-required-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description conveys the essentials: which voices are returned and that voice_id comes back. What is missing is what an agent actually needs to invoke it well — pagination semantics and the distinction from search_voice_library.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%: 'search' is documented in the schema, but 'page_size' carries only type/default/min/max constraints with no stated meaning, and the description adds nothing about either parameter. With coverage below the 80% baseline, the description needed to compensate and does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names the resource (voices), the scope (your own library), and what is returned (voice_id), and its parenthetical enumerates the sources included (premade, cloned, designed, added from shared library). It implicitly separates itself from the sibling search_voice_library by scoping to 'your own library', but it never names that sibling explicitly and is a sentence fragment rather than a verb-led statement.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The parenthetical hints at scope but does not tell an agent when to call list_voices instead of search_voice_library, add_library_voice, or list_models, all of which sit in the same sibling cluster.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.