Adjust local request, monthly, and concurrency budget limits to control ElevenLabs API usage; this updates policy caps only and does not enable paid calls.
Change local request, monthly and concurrency policy limits. This does not enable paid calls.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max_monthly_credits | No | ||
| max_credits_per_request | No | ||
| max_concurrent_generations | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutation tool. It discloses one important trait, that this does not enable paid calls, but it does not explain permissions, whether omitted parameters leave existing limits unchanged, whether zero disables a limit, or how in-flight requests are affected.
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?
The description is two sentences and front-loads the main action before the caveat. There is little wasted wording, though 'local request' is slightly awkward and could be clearer.
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?
This is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and three optional parameters at 0% schema description coverage. The description omits partial-update semantics, return behavior, and permission requirements, leaving too much for the agent to infer.
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%, so the description must compensate. It does conceptually map the three parameters to request, monthly, and concurrency policy limits, but it omits units, the meaning of setting a value to zero, and what happens when optional parameters are omitted.
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 uses a specific verb, 'Change', and identifies the resource as 'local request, monthly and concurrency policy limits', which maps to the three budget dimensions in the schema. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling get_budget_status tool, which would make the purpose even clearer.
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?
The description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative such as get_budget_status for viewing current limits. The caveat 'This does not enable paid calls' is useful context but does not tell the agent when this tool is the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.