Edit Service Account Api Key. Update an existing API key for a service account
Bulk support: accepts service_account_user_ids, api_key_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| account | No | ||
| api_key_id | Yes | ||
| is_enabled | No | ||
| allowed_ips | No | ||
| api_key_ids | No | ||
| permissions | No | ||
| character_limit | No | ||
| service_account_user_id | Yes | ||
| service_account_user_ids | No | ||
| third_party_disable_allowed | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive, but the description does not add context beyond that. It does not explain what 'edit' entails (e.g., whether it fully replaces or patches existing settings), whether invalid permission values cause partial failures, or any rate limits or permissions required. Since there are no annotations contradicting it, no contradiction, but the description fails to provide useful behavioral details.
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 concise and contains only two sentences, which is good. However, the first sentence is a near-tautology ('Edit Service Account Api Key. Update an existing API key for a service account') and the bulk support note is the only unique content. The structure could be improved by front-loading the most critical differentiators (bulk and editable fields) in a single clear sentence.
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?
For a complex tool with 11 parameters, a lack of output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is not complete enough. It fails to explain the semantics of key parameters, the behavior of update vs patch, or any error handling. The bulk support note is helpful but does not compensate for the overall missing information.
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?
With 11 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameter semantics. It only mentions 'allows editing name, permissions, character_limit, allowed_ips, is_enabled' but does not describe the special values like 'clear' and 'no_update' that appear in the schema, nor the purpose of service_account_user_ids and api_key_ids for bulk execution. The description adds minimal value over the schema.
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 clearly states the tool edits (updates) an existing API key for a service account, using the verb 'Edit' and the resource 'Service Account Api Key'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like elevenlabs_create_service_account_api_key and elevenlabs_delete_service_account_api_key, but does not mention that it only works on existing keys, so it doesn't fully differentiate from those siblings.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use create vs edit vs delete). It mentions bulk support but does not explain when bulk batch execution is appropriate or how to choose between the singular and plural ID parameters. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
There are many tools with overlapping purposes, such as multiple voice retrieval tools (get_voice_by_id, get_voices, get_user_voices_v2, get_library_voices) and several dubbing transcript segment editors with only subtle naming differences. The inclusion of platform-level tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace) alongside ElevenLabs API tools further blurs boundaries.
Naming is highly inconsistent. Most tools have the 'elevenlabs_' prefix, but some do not (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info). Several tools have truncated/random suffix names (e.g., elevenlabs_dubbing_target_transcript_segmen_b565e6, elevenlabs_get_pronunciation_dictionary_ver_45baf2), and one tool is in Portuguese (elevenlabs_list_accounts). This mixture of conventions and languages makes the pattern unpredictable.
With 155 tools, the server is extremely bloated. It mixes a comprehensive ElevenLabs API surface with unrelated MCP platform tools (marketplace, authenticate, report_bug, etc.) that belong in a separate toolkit. This is a severe mismatch between the apparent purpose (ElevenLabs audio services) and the sheer number of tools.
The ElevenLabs-specific tools cover a wide range of operations (text-to-speech, voice management, dubbing, pronunciation dictionaries, Studio projects, workspace administration, order management), making it fairly complete for those domains. However, the inclusion of unrelated platform tools and the lack of a clear focus mean that an agent would have difficulty navigating this large surface, and some operations like music finetuning or speech engines appear only partially covered.