A finished piece of music from a description. Up to 380 s.
Needs a paid plan (Startup and up). ⚠ BOTH controls cost: the price is
length multiplied by steps, so 380 s at 128 steps is about eight times a
60 s at 32. Naming style, instruments and BPM helps far more than asking
for «something upbeat».
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| seed | No | ||
| steps | No | ||
| seconds | No | ||
| description | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds meaningful behavioral details beyond annotations: paid-plan requirement, 380-second limit, and the cost formula driven by seconds and steps. This is not present in readOnlyHint/destructiveHint/openWorldHint, and there is no contradiction with annotations. It stops short of describing output format or seed behavior.
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?
Compact and front-loaded: the core result and duration limit come first, followed by prerequisites and cost/prompt guidance. Every sentence adds practical value, with only minor typographic noise.
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?
Covers the key constraints an agent needs to invoke the tool safely: paywall, max duration, cost drivers, and prompt-quality advice. Gaps are the purpose of the seed parameter and the exact output format, but these are minor given the absence of an output schema.
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 partially does by explaining the cost relationship between length and steps and by advising description content (style, instruments, BPM). Seed is never mentioned, so one of the four parameters remains semantically undocumented.
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?
States the tool converts a natural-language description into a finished music piece, with an explicit maximum duration. The resource ('music') broadly distinguishes it from sibling generate_sound_effect, though it does not name alternatives explicitly.
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?
Provides useful invocation context: paid plan required, cost is length × steps, and better prompts name style/instruments/BPM. However, it never explicitly says when to use this tool instead of generate_sound_effect or other audio siblings, so alternative selection is only implied.
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.