Reel-E

Generate a track

request_music_generation

Destructive

Generates a new original instrumental track for this listing, the same as Create in the Music panel. It suits a request for a new, custom, original or generated track, with the style that fits best (the person says yes before it runs) and a short direction: mood, instruments, pacing, tied to this listing, without an artist or song name. It takes a couple of minutes and counts as one of this listing's music generations. The finished track waits in the Music panel for the person to play and approve. On a Full control connection it starts at once; otherwise it returns a confirmationId and waits for the owner's yes.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "listingId": "<listingId>"
    },
    "name": "request_music_generation"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`style`	No	Optional starting style from the Create tab.
`direction`	No	Mood, instruments and pacing in a sentence or two, for example: warm, unhurried acoustic guitar and soft piano for a family home, building gently.
`listingId`	Yes	Listing id from list_listings.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses duration ('a couple of minutes'), a quota cost ('counts as one of this listing's music generations'), where the output lands ('waits in the Music panel for the person to play and approve'), and — critically — the two execution modes: immediate start on a Full control connection versus returning a confirmationId that waits for the owner's yes. That conditional-flow disclosure is exactly what an agent needs before invoking a non-idempotent, destructive write.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core action and dense with useful facts in a single paragraph. It is somewhat run-on, with stacked synonyms ('new, custom, original or generated') and a parenthetical aside ('the person says yes before it runs') that repeats the later confirmation detail, but there is no filler that undermines comprehension.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present and full parameter coverage, the description's remaining job is process context, which it delivers: cost, latency, approval workflow, and the conditional confirmation path. The only minor omission is not saying which tool consumes the confirmationId, but the flow itself is fully described.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real constraints not in the schema: the direction should cover 'mood, instruments, pacing', must be tied to this listing, and must avoid 'an artist or song name'. Those are meaningful guardrails the enum and descriptions alone do not convey.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Generates a new original instrumental track for this listing') and anchors it to a known UI action ('the same as Create in the Music panel'), which makes the intent unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as propose_music or set_music, so an agent must infer the boundary from the verb alone.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description sketches the triggering situation well ('suits a request for a new, custom, original or generated track... with a short direction'), and notes the person is asked to confirm first. However, it never names an alternative tool or states a when-not-to-use condition, so routing versus propose_music or list_generated_music is left to inference.

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

All Reel-E tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?