elevenlabs-mcp
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v0.1.0
- Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: text generation, voice cloning, dubbing, transcription, sound effects, music composition, etc. No significant overlap; even similar-sounding tools like text_to_speech, text_to_dialogue, and speech_to_speech are well-differentiated by their descriptions.
Naming Consistency5/5All tools use consistent snake_case naming with a verb_noun pattern (e.g., list_voices, delete_history_item, download_dubbed_audio). Minor deviations like forced_alignment are still in the same style, and there is no mixing of conventions like camelCase.
Tool Count4/528 tools is on the higher side but appropriate given the breadth of ElevenLabs features (TTS, voice management, dubbing, sound effects, music, etc.). Each major capability has its own set of tools, so the count feels comprehensive rather than bloated.
Completeness4/5The tool surface covers most key workflows: voice CRUD, generation (TTS, STS, sound effects, music), dubbing (start, status, download), transcription, alignment, and usage stats. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no list_dubbing_jobs tool, no rename_voice), but agents can work around them.
Average 3.8/5 across 28 of 28 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- No commit activity data available
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
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.jsonto 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?
The description implies a destructive operation (delete) but does not disclose side effects, irreversibility, permissions, or rate limits. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden and falls short.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise with one sentence and an Args line. However, the Args section largely repeats schema information, and the key purpose could be more front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a single required parameter and an output schema (though not shown). The description covers core behavior but lacks context on return values, side effects, or when it is appropriate to use given siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explains the single parameter 'voice_id' as 'the voice id to delete,' adding minimal context beyond the schema type. With 0% schema description coverage, it provides basic clarity but no format or source details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Delete a voice from your account,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'delete_history_item' by the resource type, but lacks explicit differentiation from other deletion tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., clone_voice, list_voices). There are no prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states it gets status and metadata, without indicating that it is a read-only, non-destructive operation, or any side effects. The agent cannot infer safety or idempotency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short, which is appropriate for a simple tool, but it lacks structure (e.g., no separate sections). It front-loads the purpose but could be more organized with explicit parameter descriptions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (not shown but reported present), the description does not need to detail returns. However, it fails to provide any contextual completeness: no usage notes, no example, no mention of error conditions or states. The tool is simple, but the description feels insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds minimal value: it says 'dubbing_id: the dubbing job id.' This merely restates the schema title and does not explain the format, source, or constraints (e.g., required length, pattern).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves status and metadata of a dubbing job, using a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'dubbing job'. The single parameter 'dubbing_id' is explained. It is distinct from siblings like 'dub_audio' (creation) or 'download_dubbed_audio' (download).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when the dubbing job ID is known or after submitting a dubbing request. There is no mention of prerequisites or context for invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description implies a read operation but does not disclose behaviors such as error handling, authentication needs, or what happens if the item does not exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more informative while remaining concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although there is an output schema, the description does not mention what metadata is returned or any behavioral aspects. For a simple one-parameter tool, it lacks completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description only repeats the parameter name and says 'the history item id', adding minimal meaning beyond the schema. It does not specify format or valid values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets metadata for a single history item, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_history (list) and delete_history_item (delete).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_history or when not to use it. The description provides no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool returns the voice object as JSON, but omits behavioral traits like whether it is read-only, requires authentication, or what happens if the voice_id does not exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise with only two sentences and an Args section. Every sentence is necessary and the structure is front-loaded with purpose, making it efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema, the return format is covered. However, the description does not mention error handling, missing voice_id scenarios, or authentication requirements. For a simple get tool, it is adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It only says 'voice_id: the voice id.', which adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter title. It does not explain what a voice is or how to obtain the ID.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get full details for a single voice', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_voices (list) and clone_voice (clone), making its purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_voices or get_history_item. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use, or context for invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning any side effects, irreversibility, required permissions, or effects on related data. For a deletion tool, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and to the point, with the purpose in the first sentence. It avoids unnecessary words, but could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate purpose and parameter sections).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema exists, so the description is adequate but lacks any context about outcomes, error conditions, or impact on the system.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds 'the history item id to delete' which clarifies the purpose of the single parameter beyond the schema's title. However, the explanation is minimal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Delete a history item' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_history_item' and 'list_history' by indicating the action (delete).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or situations where deletion is appropriate or inappropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that it saves to a file and returns the absolute path, but since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden. It lacks details on side effects (e.g., file overwrites), error cases, or permissions required.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise with no superfluous text. It uses a structured docstring format with Args and Returns sections, making it easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter tool, the description covers the basic operation and return value. However, it lacks details like file format, handling of missing history items, and potential side effects, which would make it more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It provides brief explanations: 'history_item_id: the history item id' and 'output_filename: optional output file name', but does not specify default behavior if output_filename is null or format constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Download the audio for a history item and save it to a file', specifying the verb, resource, and action. It distinguishes from siblings like 'download_dubbed_audio' and 'text_to_speech' by focusing on history item audio.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'download_dubbed_audio' or 'speech_to_text'. No prerequisites (e.g., history item must exist) or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is idempotent, pagination behavior, or rate limits. It only states it returns a JSON summary, which is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It uses a clear structure with Args and Returns, though it could be slightly more efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the basics but lacks details on sorting, default ordering, or pagination behavior. Since an output schema exists, the return format is not critical, but additional context would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds brief explanations for each parameter (e.g., 'filter to a specific voice' for voice_id), but does not cover all details like data types or constraints. Given 0% schema coverage, more detail would be beneficial.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'list' and resource 'generation history items', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_history_item' and 'delete_history_item'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description lists parameters but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., get_history_item for a single item). Usage context is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions the operation and return type but does not disclose whether it is read-only, destructive, or any side effects. Lacks safety or behavior context beyond basic functionality.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is short, well-structured, and front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence (including args) adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and two simple required params, the description provides minimal context. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., audio format, file accessibility) or error handling. Output schema exists, so return details are covered, but completeness is otherwise lacking.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must define parameters. It provides brief definitions: 'path to the audio file' and 'the exact transcript of the audio.' These add basic meaning but lack formats, constraints, or examples, which would be needed for full clarity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool aligns a known transcript to audio and returns per-word/character timings. Verb 'align' is specific, and it distinguishes from transcription (speech_to_text) or generation (text_to_speech) tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when transcript is known, but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like speech_to_text or text_to_speech. No when-not or alternative mentions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description only states 'Return', implying read-only, but fails to disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with no wasted words. Every word is necessary and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a simple getter with no parameters and an output schema. Could provide more context on the purpose of default settings, but not necessary.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters, baseline 4. Description doesn't need to add parameter info as there are none.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses specific verb 'Return' and resource 'default voice settings' with context 'used by ElevenLabs'. Clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'edit_voice_settings' and 'get_voice'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites or related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that it removes background noise/music and returns a file path, but no annotations exist and it omits details like file format support or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise and front-loaded with the main purpose, then lists arguments and return. One minor improvement could be shortening 'path to the source audio file' to 'source audio path'.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a simple processing tool: explains inputs, output, and purpose. Missing file format details but acceptable given the tool's straightforward nature.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, the description adds basic meaning (path to source, optional output name) but lacks constraints like supported formats or default behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description explicitly states the verb 'Isolate speech from an audio file' and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like text_to_speech or dub_audio.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for speech isolation but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance or alternative tool mentions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes a read-only search operation, which is accurate. However, it does not disclose any behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, or pagination behavior beyond page_size.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise: one-sentence purpose, bulleted parameter list, return statement. Front-loaded and no unnecessary text. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., markdown), but effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given an output schema exists, return details are covered. Parameter descriptions are minimal but cover essential usage. Missing details like pagination limits or language format, but overall adequate for a straightforward search tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides brief hints for each parameter (e.g., 'free-text search', examples for category) but lacks full allowed values, format requirements (e.g., language codes), or constraints (e.g., max page_size). Adds some value but incomplete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Search') and the resource ('shared ElevenLabs voice library (community voices)'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'list_voices' (likely personal library) and 'clone_voice' (cloning).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives. It implies searching the community library, but does not mention when to prefer this over 'list_voices' or other search tools. No exclusions or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes the cloning process and the effect of 'remove_background_noise', but does not disclose side effects, authorization needs, or error conditions. No annotations to supplement, so description carries full burden.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Compact description: one introductory sentence, then an Args list, and a return statement. Every sentence adds value; no fluff or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers input, optional parameters, output (returns id as JSON). Output schema is provided, so return details are sufficient. Lacks error handling or invalid input behavior, but given parameter count and no annotations, it is largely complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All five parameters are explained in the description beyond the schema (which has 0% coverage). Adds meaning like 'clean sample recordings' for audio_file_paths and 'clean the samples before cloning' for remove_background_noise. Missing format details for labels but overall effective.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool creates a new voice from audio samples, using the verb 'create' and resource 'voice'. Differentiates from siblings like 'create_voice_from_preview' by specifying 'from audio samples'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., 'create_voice_from_preview', 'design_voice'). Only implies usage through the input description but lacks when-not or alternative references.
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?
Without annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. 'Get information' implies a read-only, safe operation. Although it doesn't explicitly state non-destructive behavior or authentication requirements, for a simple 0-parameter tool it is sufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. Perfectly concise and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has zero parameters and an output schema, the description is complete. It identifies the subject (user info), and the output schema handles the rest. No gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so the description doesn't need to add parameter detail. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not introduce any confusion or missing info.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves information about the authenticated user, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_voice or get_history_item by focusing on user info, though not explicitly differentiating.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states that a file is saved and returns its path, which is transparent. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, pricing, or rate limits, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is fairly concise, starting with a clear statement and then listing Args. It is front-loaded with the purpose, but the Args section is detailed. No redundant sentences.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description explains the return value. It covers all parameters and provides examples. It could mention error handling or specific constraints, but overall it is complete for a composition tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by adding examples and explanations for each parameter (e.g., 'description of the music', 'e.g. 30000 for 30s', 'API default when omitted'). It adds meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it composes music from a text prompt and identifies the source (ElevenLabs Music). It distinguishes from sibling tools like text_to_speech, sound_effects, etc., by specifically focusing on music composition.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., sound_effects, text_to_speech). Usage is implied through the task description, but no when-not-to-use or alternative references are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the transformation and options like background noise removal, but lacks details on potential side effects, auth requirements, or limitations. Adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Front-loaded summary followed by a concise bullet list of parameters. Every sentence adds value; no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Complexity is moderate (6 params, 1 required). The description covers inputs and return value (absolute path) but omits error handling, prerequisites, or processing time. Output schema exists but details are not in description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose (e.g., voice_id defaults, model_id default). However, could provide more detail on acceptable values or format for output_filename.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool as a 'voice changer' that transforms speech in an audio file to a target voice. This is specific and distinct from siblings like text_to_speech or audio_isolation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as clone_voice or dub_audio. The intended use is implied but not compared to other tools or disclaimed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must cover behavior. It states the tool lists voices and returns a JSON summary with specific fields, but lacks details on side effects, rate limits, or pagination. Adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, then parameter details, then return format. No redundant words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present, the description still usefully lists returned fields. Missing pagination or limit details, but otherwise complete for a basic list tool given the context of many siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The 'search' parameter is described as case-insensitive and filtering by name/labels, adding clear meaning beyond the schema (which only defines type). This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'List' and resource 'voices' with clear scope 'in your account'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_voice' (single) and 'search_voice_library' (broader search).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for listing all account voices or filtering by search, but it does not explicitly state when to avoid using it or compare with sibling tools like 'search_voice_library'. Guidance is minimal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool generates and saves an audio file and returns its path, but omits details like file persistence, cost, or required permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is concise (8 lines) with a front-loaded purpose and structured bullet-like parameter explanations, containing no extraneous content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity and absence of an output schema, the description covers the core functionality, parameters, and return value adequately. It could additionally mention prerequisites like voice existence.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates well by explaining the structure of dialogue items, model_id defaults, and the purpose of each parameter. However, output_format lacks detail on acceptable values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Generate multi-speaker dialogue audio from a list of turns,' specifying a distinct verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like text_to_speech, which handles single-speaker audio.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for multi-speaker dialogue but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it reference alternatives among sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It discloses async execution and return of dubbing_id. Does not mention authentication, rate limits, or potential costs, but given the nature of dubbing, it is sufficiently transparent for typical use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is clear and well-structured, with a usage pattern and parameter list. Slightly verbose but earns its place; could be trimmed without losing substance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 7 parameters, async behavior, and an output schema, the description covers the overall workflow and return value. Lacks details on error handling or dubbing_id format, but the output schema likely addresses that.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaningful explanations for all 7 parameters (e.g., target_lang, source_url, num_speakers) with default behaviors, compensating well for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the verb 'Start a dubbing job' and the resource 'translate audio/video into another language', distinguishing it from other tools like text_to_speech or speech_to_text.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly mentions the asynchronous nature and directs the agent to poll with get_dubbing_status and then download_dubbed_audio. It also specifies input methods (local file or source URL). Could explicitly state when not to use, but context from siblings provides differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains parameter defaults and return format, but does not disclose potential side effects, error handling, or rate limits. The description is adequate but not extra insightful.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description uses a structured docstring format with an Args list, making it easy to parse. It is relatively concise, with the purpose stated first. However, some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating defaults in both description and schema).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters, no required parameters, and an output schema, the description covers parameters adequately and states the return type (JSON). It lacks details on error cases or rate limits, but for a read-only stats tool, it is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description explains each of the 5 parameters: start_unix, end_unix, metric, breakdown_type, and aggregation_interval, with defaults and examples. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema, though it could explicitly list allowed enum values for metric and breakdown_type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get character/credit usage statistics over a time window,' specifying the verb 'Get' and the resource 'usage statistics'. It distinguishes from sibling tools which are focused on audio, voice, dubbing, etc., making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implicitly indicates this tool is for retrieving usage statistics, and sibling tools are all about other domains, so context is clear. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use or not use this tool, or mention of prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It outlines the transcribe operation and return format, but omits details like file size limits, audio format requirements, or potential side effects (e.g., cost implications). Basic behavior is covered, but operational constraints are missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a concise summary, a clear Args section, and a Returns line. Each sentence is necessary and adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 6 parameters and no annotations, the description covers purpose, all parameters, and return format. It misses some operational prerequisites (e.g., file existence, format support) and error conditions, but the output schema likely handles return details. The description is adequately complete for an agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description explains each parameter in detail: audio_file_path (path), model_id (default), language_code (ISO hint), diarize (speaker annotation), tag_audio_events (non-speech events), num_speakers (hint). This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions, providing clear semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Transcribe an audio file to text (ElevenLabs Scribe).' This is a specific verb-resource combination that clearly conveys the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like text_to_speech (text to audio) and audio_isolation (separate audio).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description lists parameters but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives such as forced_alignment or speech_to_speech. The usage context is implied by the purpose, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice is given.
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?
No annotations, but description indicates a read-only query. No hidden side effects or requirements for a 0-parameter tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded, no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Fully adequate for a 0-parameter tool with output schema. No missing context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters, schema coverage 100%. Description adds no param info, which is fine.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it checks subscription tier and character usage. Specific verb and resource, distinct from siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or alternatives, but implied as the go-to for subscription info. Adequate for a simple tool.
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, the description carries full burden. It states the return value ('absolute path of the saved audio file') and the action. It does not disclose permissions or side effects, but for a download tool this is reasonable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, using bullet points for parameters and a clear statement of the return value. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers key aspects: what it does, parameters, and return. It could mention that the dubbing job must be complete and the file format, but overall it is complete enough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: dubbing_id, language_code, and output_filename. Agents can understand their meaning without schema hints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The tool name and description clearly specify the action (download) and resource (dubbed audio for a completed dubbing job). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'download_history_audio' and 'dub_audio' by focusing on dubbed audio output.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the dubbing job must be completed ('for a completed dubbing job') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide conditions or prerequisites.
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, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that only provided fields change, parameter ranges (e.g., speed 0.7–1.2), and return type (JSON). Minor omissions: no mention of idempotency or effect on existing streams.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: a single sentence for purpose, then a clear list of parameters and return type. No redundancy or filler. Front-loads the key behaviour.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple mutation nature and presence of output schema (returns JSON), the description covers purpose, partial update, parameter constraints, and return format. It lacks context on error handling or default behavior for omitted fields, but overall adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates fully. It lists each parameter with type and constraints: voice_id as ID, stability et al. as floats with ranges, use_speaker_boost as bool. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool updates voice settings and specifies that only provided fields are changed. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_default_voice_settings (read-only) and clone_voice (creation).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains the partial update behavior but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_default_voice_settings for reading, or design_voice for creative generation). There is no mention of prerequisites or context for exclusion.
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, the description itself implies a safe, read-only operation. It does not disclose potential side effects or auth requirements, but for a simple listing tool, the behavioral traits are adequately clear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word is necessary, and there is no verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, read-only, output schema exists), the description is complete enough to convey the tool's function without requiring additional detail.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no parameters (100% coverage), so the description's mention of 'capabilities' adds value by indicating what the output contains, beyond the schema's definition.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'available ElevenLabs models', including 'capabilities'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_voices or list_history, which list different entities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. While the tool's purpose is obvious, there are no alternatives mentioned or exclusions stated.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool saves audio to a file and returns the absolute path, lists parameters and their effects (model options, voice settings, seed for determinism, output format). It does not mention overwrite behavior or permission requirements, but overall it provides substantial behavioral context beyond a minimal statement.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is structured as a standard docstring with 'Args:' and 'Returns:', making it easy to scan. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. Despite covering many parameters, every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is appropriately concise for the complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the 12 parameters, no annotations, and presence of an output schema (return path), the description covers all necessary aspects: parameter details, defaults, options, and return value. It leaves no critical gaps for typical TTS usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so excellently: for each parameter (12 total), it provides type hints, default values, examples (e.g., model_id: 'eleven_multilingual_v2', output_format: 'mp3_44100_128'), and value ranges (e.g., speed: 0.7-1.2). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description begins with a clear action: 'Convert text to speech and save the audio to a file.' This explicitly states the verb ('convert', 'save') and the resource ('text to speech'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like speech_to_speech or text_to_dialogue by focusing on direct text-to-speech conversion with file output.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., speech_to_speech, text_to_dialogue). The usage is implied by the tool's name and description ('convert text to speech'), but no direct guidance on when to choose it over other audio tools or mention of exclusions is provided.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns the new voice's id and name as JSON, which is a behavioral trait. The write nature (saving as permanent) is implied. More details on permissions or side effects could improve transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one purpose sentence, then a list of arguments, and a return note. Every sentence adds value. Front-loaded with the main action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 required parameters, an output schema (though not shown), and many sibling tools, the description is complete. It explains the relationship with 'design_voice', details all parameters, and specifies the return format. No extra information is needed for an agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains each parameter: 'voice_name', 'voice_description', and 'generated_voice_id' (noting it comes from 'design_voice'). This adds meaning beyond the schema, but could include constraints like length or format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Save a previously designed voice preview as a permanent voice') and the resource (voice preview). It distinguishes from siblings like 'design_voice' (which creates the preview) and 'clone_voice', making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use: after designing a voice with 'design_voice'. It lists required arguments including 'generated_voice_id' returned by 'design_voice', providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives.
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?
No annotations exist, so the description fully bears the burden. It discloses that the tool generates an audio file and returns the absolute path, with parameter constraints like duration range and influence scale. It does not mention edge cases or limitations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is structured in a clean Args block followed by a return statement. Each sentence adds value, and it is appropriately sized for the parameter count.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 6 parameters and no output schema provided in the input (though context says one exists), the description covers all inputs and the return value. It is complete for a generative tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must and does explain all 6 parameters with examples and constraints (e.g., duration 0.5–30, influence 0–1). It adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying defaults and behavior when omitted.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with 'Generate a sound effect from a text prompt,' which clearly states the action and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like speech_to_text or compose_music.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains each parameter's effect but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. However, the context of sibling tools makes the use case clear.
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?
Discloses that previews are generated and saved to files, and that they are not permanent unless explicitly saved via sibling. No annotations exist, so description covers key behaviors. Could be more explicit about the temporary nature of previews.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Structured into title, paragraph, Args list, and Returns line. No redundant information. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present, the description offers adequate return information (IDs and paths). Covers main purpose, parameters, and follow-up action. Lacks error handling or edge cases, but acceptable for a design tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Adds meaning to all four parameters beyond the schema: provides example for voice_description, recommendation for text, default behavior for model_id, and explanation for auto_generate_text. Fully compensates for 0% schema description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool designs candidate voices from a text description, generates previews, and saves audio. Distinguishes from sibling tool create_voice_from_preview which is used for permanent retention.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly describes when to use (designing voices from description) and provides an alternative (use create_voice_from_preview to keep permanently). Also recommends minimum text length.
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
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
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/neomorrison/elevenlabs-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server