Skip to main content
Glama

voice_clone

Create a voice clone from provided audio files using ElevenLabs technology to replicate a specific voice for text-to-speech applications.

Instructions

Create an instant voice clone of a voice using provided audio files.

⚠️ COST WARNING: This tool makes an API call to ElevenLabs which may incur costs. Only use when explicitly requested by the user.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
descriptionNo
filesYes
nameYes

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function for the 'voice_clone' tool. It processes input files, calls the ElevenLabs API to create an instant voice clone (IVC), and returns success information including the new voice ID.
    def voice_clone(
        name: str, files: list[str], description: str | None = None
    ) -> TextContent:
        input_files = [str(handle_input_file(file).absolute()) for file in files]
        voice = client.voices.ivc.create(
            name=name, description=description, files=input_files
        )
    
        return TextContent(
            type="text",
            text=f"""Voice cloned successfully: Name: {voice.name}
            ID: {voice.voice_id}
            Category: {voice.category}
            Description: {voice.description or "N/A"}""",
        )
  • The @mcp.tool decorator registers the 'voice_clone' function as an MCP tool, including its description and parameters (name: str, files: list[str], description: str | None).
    @mcp.tool(
        description="""Create an instant voice clone of a voice using provided audio files.
    
        ⚠️ COST WARNING: This tool makes an API call to ElevenLabs which may incur costs. Only use when explicitly requested by the user.
        """
    )
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 usefully adds context about external API costs ('makes an API call to ElevenLabs which may incur costs'), which is valuable behavioral information. However, it doesn't describe other important traits like whether this is a read/write operation, what happens to the created clone, error conditions, or response format.

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 perfectly concise and well-structured. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides critical usage guidance with a warning symbol for emphasis. Every sentence earns its place, and the information is front-loaded appropriately.

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?

Given the complexity of voice cloning (a write operation with cost implications), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers the core purpose and critical cost warning but lacks details about parameters, behavioral outcomes, error handling, and what the tool returns. For a tool with significant implications, more completeness would be expected.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. The description mentions 'using provided audio files' which maps to the 'files' parameter, but doesn't explain the 'name' or 'description' parameters at all. With 3 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description adds minimal semantic value beyond what's obvious from parameter names.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Create an instant voice clone of a voice using provided audio files.' It specifies the verb ('create'), resource ('voice clone'), and method ('using provided audio files'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_voice_from_preview' or 'text_to_voice', which might have overlapping functionality in voice creation contexts.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides explicit usage guidance with the cost warning: 'Only use when explicitly requested by the user.' This gives clear context for when to use the tool. However, it doesn't mention when NOT to use it (e.g., for simple text-to-speech vs. cloning) or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

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/projectservan8n/elevenlabs-mcp'

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