Skip to main content
Glama

OpenSoundBox — AI song generator

Is the song ready

song_status
Read-onlyIdempotent

Song status by song_id from create_song: queued — waiting in line, singing — being sung, ready — the versions are done (audio links included), failed — it didn't work (reason in message; failed songs aren't counted). Call at most once every 10 seconds. The page link works before the song is ready too.

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": {
      "song_id": "<song_id>"
    },
    "name": "song_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
song_idYessong_id from the create_song response

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real value by enumerating the four status states, explaining that ready includes audio links and failure includes a reason in message. The phrase 'failed songs aren't counted' is left unexplained, which is a small ambiguity.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

One dense paragraph with the resource, state meanings, rate limit and a useful caveat about the page link, all front-loaded with no filler sentences.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return semantics and does so via the state enumeration and the note that the page link works before ready. Minor gaps remain around what message contains in non-failure states.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already documents song_id as coming from the create_song response, so the description adds no new information about the single parameter beyond reinforcing that origin.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

'Song status by song_id from create_song' gives a specific verb and resource and ties it to the sibling that produces the id, so an agent can tell it apart from create_song without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It states a concrete polling constraint ('Call at most once every 10 seconds') and implies the workflow (call it with the id returned by create_song). It doesn't say when to stop polling or name alternatives, but no alternative tool exists in the sibling set for this purpose.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources