Skip to main content
Glama

tunova

by io.github.erliona

generate_song

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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tagsNoStyle/genre, e.g. 'lofi hip hop, mellow, rainy'. Most useful in custom mode.
modelNoSuno model version (v5.5 — the only model). Optional; defaults to v5.5.
titleNoSong title (custom mode).
customNofalse (default): describe the song and Suno writes everything. true: `prompt` is the literal lyrics, and `tags`/`title` are used.
promptYesWhat the song should be about (simple mode), or the exact lyrics (when custom=true).
instrumentalNoIf true, generate without vocals.
idempotency_keyNoOptional 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.

All tunova toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

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.

Resources