Skip to main content
Glama
AceDataCloud

ProducerMCP

by AceDataCloud
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

producer_swap_instrumentals

Replace a song's instrumental track with instrumentals from another audio to create mashups, mixing vocals from one track with music from another.

Instructions

Swap the instrumental track of one song with instrumentals from another.

Requests instrumental swapping for the provided audio.

Use this when:
- You want to combine instrumentals from one song with vocals from another
- You want to hear how the same vocals sound over different music
- You're creating an instrumental mashup

Returns:
    Task ID and the swapped audio information.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
asyncNoWhether to process the request asynchronously.
audio_idYesID of the base audio whose instrumentals will be replaced.
callback_urlNoWebhook callback URL for asynchronous notifications.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.1.18
    • removedInput schema / properties / swap_audio_id
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "ID of the audio whose instrumentals to use as replacement.",
-  "title": "Swap Audio Id",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "audio_id",
-  "swap_audio_id"
-]New value: +[
+  "audio_id"
+]
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.16
    • addedInput schema / properties / async
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Whether to process the request asynchronously.",
+  "title": "Async"
+}
  3. Addedv0.1.13
  4. Removedv0.1.12
  5. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It does frame the operation as 'Requests instrumental swapping' and states that a Task ID is returned, which tells the agent the operation is task-based rather than returning immediate audio. However, it does not disclose whether the original file is modified, how the result is eventually retrieved, or any prerequisites or limitations.

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 short, front-loaded, and scannable with use-case bullets and a Returns line. The second sentence, 'Requests instrumental swapping for the provided audio,' is largely redundant with the first sentence and does not fully earn its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The central workflow is incomplete: the description says instrumentals come 'from another' song, but the schema exposes only a single audio_id plus async and callback_url, with no way to identify the other instrumental source. An agent cannot reliably determine what to pass or how the replacement source is chosen. Return values are likely covered by the output schema, but this source ambiguity is a significant functional gap.

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?

The input schema fully documents all three parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter-level detail; the baseline 3 applies. The phrase 'from another' is not mapped to any actual parameter, which introduces mild ambiguity about how the replacement instrumental source is selected, but the schema itself is clear about audio_id being the base audio.

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?

Opens with a concrete verb-object statement: 'Swap the instrumental track of one song with instrumentals from another.' It names the action and resource clearly, and the instrumental-vs-vocal wording distinguishes it from the sibling swap_vocals tool without needing further explanation.

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?

Provides an explicit 'Use this when' bullet list with concrete scenarios: combining instrumentals from one song with vocals from another, testing vocals over different music, and creating an instrumental mashup. It does not mention when not to use it or directly route to alternatives, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools