Check the status and result of an ElevenLabs async speech generation by ID, reconciling terminal state locally so you can confirm completion or failure.
Read the status and result of one ElevenCreative async speech generation and reconcile terminal state locally.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| generation_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Read' implies a safe non-mutating call, but the phrase 'reconcile terminal state locally' is unexplained jargon and the description says nothing about what happens for unknown/expired ids, whether partial results appear while pending, or how long generation records persist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. The trailing clause about reconciling terminal state is efficient in length but vague in meaning rather than wasteful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should convey at least the shape of the status states and what the 'result' contains when terminal. It conveys neither, leaving the agent unable to interpret the response, though the core call semantics are understandable from name plus description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the single parameter has no documented format, yet the description only says the id refers to 'one ... generation'. It adds no meaning about whether this is the id returned by create_async_speech, its length limits, or accepted formats, so an agent must guess the id source.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('the status and result of one ElevenCreative async speech generation'), which clearly distinguishes it from the create/generate siblings in the list. It falls short of 5 because it never names the counterpart tool (create_async_speech) that produces the id this one consumes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied: 'async' plus 'status and result' signals this is a polling tool to call after kicking off a generation, but the description never says so explicitly, gives no polling cadence guidance, and names no alternative for retrieving finished audio (e.g. download_history_audio or get_generation_history_item).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.