Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

ACE Music MCP Server by useapi.net (third-party)

by net.useapi
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Write lyrics

acemusic_write_lyrics

Write or rewrite song lyrics and a title from a request, without making audio; pass the result as lyrics to acemusic_create_song. Optional style and existing lyrics steer it; model acemusic-v1 adds section headers with how each part is played. Returns { title, lyrics }; takes ~10-40 s. POST /music/lyrics.

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": {
      "prompt": "<prompt>"
    },
    "name": "acemusic_write_lyrics"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailNoThe account to use (no credits charged as far as seen). Default: any healthy account.
modelNoThe model: acemusic-v1 | acemusic-v1.1 | ace-step-1.5-xl. Default acemusic-v1 (4 credits a request); ace-step-1.5-xl is free (0 credits); acemusic-v1.1 reads references and covers (requests that need reading switch to it, reported as modelUsed).
styleNoThe song's style, for fitting lyrics.
titleNoA working title.
lyricsNoExisting lyrics to rewrite or continue.
promptYesWhat to write: the theme, story, mood, or a change to the given lyrics.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world; the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: no audio is generated, the return shape is { title, lyrics }, the call takes ~10-40 s, and acemusic-v1 injects section headers describing how each part is played. It does not restate the credit cost or any queueing behavior, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then workflow, then return/latency. Every clause carries distinct information — no restatement of the name or title, no filler.

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?

For a non-idempotent generative call with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape, expected latency, downstream handoff, and a model-specific output quirk. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by explaining the interaction between parameters ('optional style and existing lyrics steer it') and by documenting a model-specific effect (acemusic-v1 adds section headers), which is meaning the schema does not carry.

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?

States a specific verb pair (write or rewrite) and resource (song lyrics and a title), and immediately delimits scope with 'without making audio', which cleanly separates it from acemusic_create_song. An agent can distinguish this from every sibling without opening a 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?

Explicitly routes the agent forward: 'pass the result as lyrics to acemusic_create_song', and clarifies this tool does not produce audio. It also explains that supplying existing lyrics triggers rewrite/continue mode. No negative guidance on when to skip it entirely (e.g. if the caller already has final lyrics), so it falls just short of a 5.

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

All ACE Music MCP Server by useapi.net (third-party) toolsInspect
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