ProducerMCP

producer_swap_vocals

Replace vocals in a song with vocals from another track to create vocal mashups and hear different voices over the same beat.

Instructions

Swap the vocals of one song with vocals from another song.

Requests vocal swapping for the provided audio.

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

Returns:
    Task ID and the swapped audio information.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`async`	No	Whether to process the request asynchronously.
`audio_id`	Yes	ID of the base audio whose vocals will be replaced.
`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.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.1.18Aug 28, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / swap_audio_id

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "ID of the audio whose vocals to use as replacement.",
-  "title": "Swap Audio Id",
-  "type": "string"
-}

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "audio_id",
-  "swap_audio_id"
-]New value: +[
+  "audio_id"
+]

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?

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It mentions 'Requests' and states that a Task ID is returned, implying an asynchronous request flow. However, it does not disclose side effects, prerequisites, or how the replacement vocals are supplied, leaving important behavioral details incomplete.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main action. The 'Requests vocal swapping' sentence is mildly redundant with the first line, but the bullet list and Returns section are useful and economically worded.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description omits how the second audio source is identified, which is essential for correct invocation. The mismatch between the described two-song swap and the single-audio request schema leaves the tool incomplete from an agent's perspective.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description creates confusion by referencing 'another song' with no corresponding schema parameter. The only audio-related param, audio_id, is described as the base audio whose vocals are replaced, so an agent cannot determine how to specify the replacement vocals, undermining the parameter clarity.

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+resource: swapping the vocals between two songs. The term 'vocals' clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like producer_swap_instrumentals. The core action is immediately recognizable even though the second-audio mechanism is not explicit.

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 a 'Use this when' list with three concrete scenarios: vocal mashups, trying different vocals over a beat, and combining vocals with another instrumental. It does not name alternative tools or explicitly say when not to use, but the context is clear.

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

Deploy Server