ProducerMCP

producer_cover_music

Generate a cover or remix of an existing song in a different genre, arrangement, or mood while preserving the original melody and lyrics. Supply an audio ID and style prompt to receive the new version.

Instructions

Create a cover or remix version of an existing song in a different style.

This generates a new version of a song with a different arrangement, genre,
or mood while keeping the core melody and lyrics.

Use this when:
- You want to hear a song in a different genre
- You want an acoustic/unplugged version of an electronic song
- You want to remix a song with a different vibe

Returns:
    Task ID and the cover audio information.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`async`	No	Whether to process the request asynchronously.
`model`	No	Model version to use for the cover.	FUZZ-2.0
`prompt`	No	Description of how you want the cover to sound. Examples: 'acoustic unplugged version', 'jazz lounge style', '80s synthwave remix'
`audio_id`	Yes	ID of the audio to create a cover of. This is the 'id' field from a previous generation.
`callback_url`	No	Webhook callback URL for asynchronous notifications.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.18Aug 28, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / style

Removed value: -{
-  "default": "",
-  "description": "Target music style for the cover. Examples: 'jazz, smooth, saxophone', 'acoustic folk, gentle guitar', 'electronic dance, high energy'",
-  "title": "Style",
-  "type": "string"
-}

Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.16Aug 11, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / async

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Whether to process the request asynchronously.",
+  "title": "Async"
+}

Addedv0.1.13May 27, 2026
Removedv0.1.12May 20, 2026
First observedv0.1.0Apr 25, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does explain that a new version is generated and mentions the return value (Task ID and cover audio info), which is helpful. However, it does not clarify asynchronous behavior, whether the original audio is left unmodified, or any callback semantics, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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?

The description is well-structured with a clear opening statement, a focused 'Use this when' list, and a brief returns note. It is slightly redundant in explaining what the generated version changes, but overall every section earns its place and the content is easy to scan.

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 tool has a rich schema with 100% parameter coverage, and the description covers core use cases and expected outputs. It is complete enough for an agent to understand what the tool does and when to invoke it. It could be stronger by clarifying async/callback behavior and differentiating from the variation sibling, but those are not critical gaps.

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 100%, so the parameters are already thoroughly documented. The description adds general context about cover/remix use cases and prompt examples, but it does not add substantial parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states it creates a cover or remix version of an existing song in a different style, and emphasizes that the core melody and lyrics are retained. It is specific about the verb, resource, and output. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with the similar-sounding sibling producer_variation_music, leaving some potential overlap unresolved.

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 'Use this when' section provides concrete scenarios such as hearing a song in a different genre or creating an acoustic version of an electronic song. This gives clear usage context, but it does not state when not to use this tool or point to an alternative sibling like producer_variation_music.

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

Deploy Server