Skip to main content
Glama
krystiangw

elevenlabs-voice-mcp

by krystiangw
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have completely distinct purposes: one lists available voices, the other converts text to speech. There is no overlap or ambiguity in their functions.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Both tools use snake_case, but the pattern differs: 'list_voices' is a clear verb_noun construction, while 'text_to_speech' is a noun phrase describing the action. This is a minor inconsistency, but both names are intuitive and readable.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only two tools, the server feels minimal. While both tools are essential for the primary TTS workflow, the scope is narrow and might be insufficient for users expecting voice management capabilities.

    Completeness4/5

    The core workflow of listing voices and generating speech is covered. However, missing operations like fetching individual voice details or managing voices create minor gaps that agents could work around by using the list result.

  • Average 3.8/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 1 commit in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions saving as MP3 and optional playback, but fails to disclose network dependency, API key requirements, or side effects like file creation location. This is insufficient for a tool interacting with an external service.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness5/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is a single sentence that front-loads the core action and includes only necessary information. It is efficient and free of filler.

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

    Completeness3/5

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

    The tool is relatively simple, but the absence of annotations and output schema means the description should provide more context. It covers the core function well but omits prerequisites like API key setup and potential side effects, leaving gaps for an agent evaluating whether this tool fits the situation.

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

    Parameters3/5

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

    The input schema provides 100% coverage for all five parameters, so the description adds little beyond the schema. It mentions 'save it as an MP3' and 'optionally play' which are already represented in the schema descriptions for output_path and play. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose5/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states the verb 'Convert' with resource 'text to speech', and specifies the output as MP3 with optional playback. This strongly distinguishes it from sibling list_voices, which is about listing voices, not generating speech.

    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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus list_voices or any alternatives. The description implies usage for converting text to speech, but does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or when it might be inappropriate to use.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

  • Behavior4/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states that the tool lists voices and returns specific fields, and it clarifies the account scope. No side effects are mentioned, but as a simple list operation, none are expected.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness5/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and return value without any wasted words. It achieves maximum clarity in minimal space.

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

    Completeness5/5

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

    Given the tool's low complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is fully sufficient. It states what the tool lists, the account scope, and the returned fields, providing all necessary information for a straightforward list operation.

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

    Parameters4/5

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

    There are no parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds contextual meaning by mentioning 'configured account', which clarifies the implicit scope of the list operation, but there are no parameter semantics to elaborate further.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose5/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states the action ('List'), the resource ('ElevenLabs voices'), and the scope ('on the configured account'). It also specifies the return data ('id + name + labels'), making it distinct from the sibling tool 'text_to_speech' which is for synthesis.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines3/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    Usage context is implied by the verb 'List' and the absence of parameters, indicating this is a read-only listing tool. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus 'text_to_speech', leaving the decision to inference.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

elevenlabs-voice-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

elevenlabs-voice-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/krystiangw/elevenlabs-voice-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server