Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
UnClick MCP Server

UnClick MCP Server

by malamutemayhem
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

elevenlabs_get_voice

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve metadata for a specific ElevenLabs voice by ID, with optional stability and similarity settings, to inspect voice details before use.

Instructions

Get metadata for a specific ElevenLabs voice by ID.

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": {
      "api_key": "<api_key>",
      "voice_id": "<voice_id>"
    },
    "name": "elevenlabs_get_voice"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
api_keyYes
voice_idYes
with_settingsNoInclude voice settings (stability, similarity_boost)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.1.9
  2. Removed
  3. Addedv0.1.5

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The word 'metadata' hints that audio is not returned, but the description says nothing about what fields come back, auth requirements, or how with_settings changes the payload.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

One short front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the source of the missing detail elsewhere.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should say what metadata is returned, and two of three parameters are undocumented. For a lookup tool with an optional settings flag, this leaves the agent guessing at invocation details.

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 only 33%: voice_id and api_key have no schema descriptions, and only with_settings is documented. The description adds no meaning to any of the three parameters, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (metadata for a specific ElevenLabs voice) and identifies the lookup key (ID). This cleanly separates it from elevenlabs_list_voices, though it doesn't name that sibling explicitly.

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?

'by ID' implies you must already have a voice_id, which is weak usage guidance. It never states when to use this instead of elevenlabs_list_voices to discover a voice, nor when with_settings should be enabled.

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