A
licenseB
qualityA
maintenanceA RunAPI MCP server for the Suno music generation models, enabling task creation (text-to-music, covers, mashups, etc.), polling, and pricing lookup through a single API key.
15
133
Apache 2.0
tunova
Server Details
Generate Suno AI music (v5.5) from any MCP client. Async; billed only on success.
Ownership verified
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- erliona/tunova-sdk
- GitHub Stars
- 0
- Server Listing
- Tunova
Available Tools
3 toolscheck_songAInspect
Get the current status of a song job by job_id — a single check with no waiting. Returns the audio URLs if complete, an error if it failed, or 'processing' if still rendering.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | The job_id returned by generate_song. |
TDQS
A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It fully discloses the three possible outcomes (URLs, error, processing) and notes it is non-waiting. No contradictions.
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?
A single sentence that includes all essential information: action, resource, query parameter, and response types. No unnecessary words.
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?
For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the key outcomes. However, it could improve by specifying the response format (e.g., JSON) or noting that no side effects occur.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% description coverage for job_id. The description adds context beyond the schema by specifying 'The job_id returned by generate_song', telling the agent where to obtain the parameter value.
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?
The description clearly states it gets the status of a song job by job_id, with a single check and no waiting. It distinguishes from siblings generate_song (creation) and wait_for_song (presumably polling).
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?
The description explicitly says 'a single check with no waiting', implying use for one-time status checks. The sibling tools provide alternatives, but the description could more directly say when not to use it (e.g., for waiting, use wait_for_song).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
generate_songAInspect
Start generating a song with Suno. Returns immediately with a job_id — a full render takes 1-3 minutes, so this does NOT return audio. After calling this, call wait_for_song with the returned job_id to get the audio URL when ready. Costs 10 tokens, billed only on success.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tags | No | Style/genre, e.g. 'lofi hip hop, mellow, rainy'. Most useful in custom mode. | |
| model | No | Suno model version (v5.5 — the only model). Optional; defaults to v5.5. | |
| title | No | Song title (custom mode). | |
| custom | No | false (default): describe the song and Suno writes everything. true: `prompt` is the literal lyrics, and `tags`/`title` are used. | |
| prompt | Yes | What the song should be about (simple mode), or the exact lyrics (when custom=true). | |
| instrumental | No | If true, generate without vocals. | |
| idempotency_key | No | Optional logical-request id. Reuse it to recover one submit; use a new value to intentionally generate the same song again or retry after a terminal failed job. When omitted, Tunova derives a stable key from the song arguments for safe automatic retries. |
TDQS
A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Despite no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: async execution, render time, no audio returned, and cost model. Missing details on failure modes or error handling, but the core transparency is strong.
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?
The description is concise with three sentences, front-loaded with purpose and no unnecessary information. Every sentence adds value.
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?
The description covers the essential aspects: action, return value, timing, next steps, and cost. For an asynchronous tool with no output schema, it is fairly complete, though it could mention error handling or cancellation.
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% with good individual descriptions. The tool description does not add extra parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description clearly states the action 'Start generating a song with Suno' and specifies the immediate return of a job_id. It distinguishes from siblings by explaining the asynchronous nature and the need to call wait_for_song.
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?
The description provides clear usage context: when to call this tool and the next step (wait_for_song). It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the sibling tools and flow guide are clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
wait_for_songAInspect
Wait for a song job to finish and return the audio when ready. Polls server-side for up to ~45 seconds. If the song is ready, returns the clips with audio URLs. If it is still rendering, returns its status so you can call wait_for_song again with the same job_id. Safe to call repeatedly — it only reads status, never starts a new song.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | The job_id returned by generate_song. | |
| max_wait_seconds | No | How long to wait before returning (default 45, max 55). |
TDQS
A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses key behavioral traits: polls up to ~45 seconds, returns audio if ready or status if still rendering, safe to call repeatedly, and only reads status. This gives the agent a complete understanding of the tool's side effects.
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?
The description is very concise with three short sentences. Each sentence adds essential information: purpose, behavior, and safety. No unnecessary words or redundancy.
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?
Despite having no output schema, the description explains what is returned in both conditions (clips with audio URLs or status). It covers polling limits, idempotency, and relationship to generate_song, providing a complete picture for a 2-parameter tool.
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 100% with parameter descriptions already present. The description adds value by specifying defaults (max_wait_seconds default 45, max 55) and linking job_id to generate_song, going beyond the schema.
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?
The description clearly identifies the tool as waiting for a song job to finish and returning the audio when ready. It distinguishes itself from siblings like generate_song (creates) and check_song (presumably checks status) by describing its polling behavior.
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?
The description provides clear context on when to call (after generating a song) and notes it is safe to call repeatedly because it only reads status. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like check_song for non-blocking checks, leaving some guidance implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
1 tool update
- Changed
generate_song1 field changed- added
Input schema / properties / idempotency_keyAdded value: +{ + "description": "Optional logical-request id. Reuse it to recover one submit; use a new value to intentionally generate the same song again or retry after a terminal failed job. When omitted, Tunova derives a stable key from the song arguments for safe automatic retries.", + "maxLength": 128, + "minLength": 1, + "type": "string" +}
1 tool update
- Changed
generate_song2 fields changed- changed
Input schema / properties / model / descriptionPrevious value: -"Suno model version. Omit to use the account default."New value: +"Suno model version (v5.5 — the only model). Optional; defaults to v5.5." - changed
Input schema / properties / model / enumPrevious value: -[ - "v4.5", - "v5", - "v5.5" -]New value: +[ + "v5.5" +]
3 tool updates
- First observed
check_song - First observed
generate_song - First observed
wait_for_song
Frequently Asked Questions
Claiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as
io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such asio.github.acme/serveralso needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at
/.well-known/glama.jsonon the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Related MCP Connectors
MCP server for Suno AI music generation, lyrics, and covers
Generate AI music via the Lacuna Music API from MCP clients like Claude Desktop & Code.
MCP server for Producer/Riffusion AI music generation
Generate AI images and videos from any compatible MCP client.
Related MCP Servers
- FlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceMCP server for Suno music generation API that enables generating lyrics and custom songs with style tags, model selection, and automatic polling for task completion.2-
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceAn MCP server that generates music using your Suno account, enabling credit checking, song generation, and MP3 downloads without third-party APIs.7MIT
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceOne MCP server for music, image, video, and audio generation across Suno, Grok Imagine, Seedance, Kling, Hailuo, Wan, VEO, Ideogram, and GPT Image 2. Generate, edit, upscale, reframe, and master through one API key and one credit pool.161206MIT
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: generate_song creates a job, check_song provides a one-time status check, and wait_for_song polls until completion. No overlap or ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case: generate_song, wait_for_song, check_song. Very predictable and readable.
Tool Count4/5
With 3 tools, the set is minimal but appropriate for a narrow purpose (song generation). It covers the essential workflow without being overly small.
Completeness3/5
The tools cover the core generation lifecycle (create, check, wait), but lack operations like cancel, list, or delete songs, which are notable gaps for a complete service.