Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SunoMCP

SunoMCP

by AceDataCloud
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

suno_archive_custom_model

Archive a custom music model to prevent further use. This action disables the model, though it may not immediately free up capacity.

Instructions

Archive a custom music model so it can no longer be used.

Archiving does not guarantee that model capacity is released.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "suno_archive_custom_model"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesID of the custom music model to archive.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.1.16

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add the caveat that archiving does not guarantee capacity release, which is useful, but it omits whether archiving is reversible, whether it affects existing generations or references, and what error or failure conditions may occur.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the additional capacity caveat earns its place as an important behavioral note.

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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is mostly complete: it states what happens and adds a relevant caveat. It could improve by mentioning reversibility or confirmation behavior, but the core information needed to call it correctly is present.

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 schema already documents the single parameter with 100% coverage: 'ID of the custom music model to archive.' The description adds no further semantic detail, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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?

The description clearly states a specific verb ('Archive'), a specific resource ('custom music model'), and the key effect ('can no longer be used'). This distinguishes it from sibling custom-model tools like creation, retrieval, listing, and generation.

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 case is clear: archive an existing custom model to disable its use. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the action itself and the effect are specific enough to guide selection among the sibling tools.

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