flayr

Add music tracks

music_tracks_create

[writes flayr data · write scope] Add 1–50 uploaded audio tracks to a brand library atomically. First use upload_media for each file, POST its raw bytes to uploadUrl with Content-Type audio/mpeg (or the actual audio type), then pass the returned storageId and track metadata here. Include source, licenseCode and attribution; madeOn records the generation date for Suno music. No music generation or Ember charge. All tracks save or none do. Use stable externalIds from the manifest; list and compare them before retrying an uncertain result. Duplicates reject the whole batch. (Wraps POST /api/v2/music/tracks.)

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": {
      "tracks": "<tracks>"
    },
    "name": "music_tracks_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tracks`	Yes
`brandId`	No	Brand id or personal. Omit to use the key’s bound brand, otherwise the owner’s active brand.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the required `write` scope, atomic all-or-nothing semantics, whole-batch rejection on duplicates (including archived tracks), and the cost note that no Ember charge or generation occurs. Annotations already cover non-destructive/non-idempotent, so this is strong added context; only the response shape for a partial/uncertain failure is left implicit.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with scope tag then purpose, then workflow, then constraints — a sensible order. Dense but nearly every clause carries operational information; the internal jargon ('flayr', 'Ember charge') costs a little clarity.

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 2-parameter but deeply nested 12-field payload tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical call sequence, atomicity, and duplicate semantics. What is missing is what the tool returns on success, which forces the agent to guess how to report created tracks.

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 description coverage is 50%, and the description does add meaning for storageId provenance, externalId stability, licenseCode/attribution requirements, and madeOn as the Suno generation date. However, several required nested fields (title, artist, sourceUrl, attributionRequired, adRightsConfirmed) get no treatment, and brandId is unaddressed in prose.

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 and resource ('Add 1–50 uploaded audio tracks to a brand library'), gives the batch bounds, and explicitly separates itself from generation ('No music generation'). An agent can distinguish this from music_tracks_list or create_content without opening any 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?

Lays out a concrete prerequisite workflow: use upload_media for each file, POST raw bytes to uploadUrl with the audio content type, then call this tool with the returned storageId. It also gives retry guidance ('list and compare them before retrying an uncertain result'). It does not name music_tracks_list explicitly, though it alludes to listing.

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

All flayr tools Inspect

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

Need Help?