Skip to main content
Glama

suno_extend_music

Extend an existing song from a chosen timestamp by adding new lyrics sections like verses, bridges, or outros. Continue a generated track to make it longer, then merge segments.

Instructions

Extend an existing song from a specific timestamp with new lyrics.

This allows you to continue a previously generated song, adding new sections
like additional verses, a bridge, or an outro.

Use this when:
- A generated song is too short and you want to add more
- You want to add a bridge or outro to an existing song
- You're building a longer song piece by piece

After extending multiple times, use suno_concat_music to merge all segments.

Returns:
    Task ID and the extended audio information.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
lyricYesLyrics for the extended section. Use section markers like [Verse], [Chorus], [Bridge], [Outro]. The extension will continue from where the original song left off.
modelNoModel version to use for the extension.chirp-v5-5
styleNoMusic style for the extension. Leave empty to maintain the original style, or specify to change the style mid-song.
audio_idYesID of the audio to extend. This is the 'id' field from a previous generation result.
continue_atYesTimestamp in seconds where to start the extension. For example, 120.5 means continue from 2 minutes and 0.5 seconds into the song.
callback_urlNoWebhook callback URL for asynchronous notifications. When provided, the API will call this URL when the extension is complete.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.18
    • changedInput schema / properties / model / enum
      Previous value: -[
      -  "chirp-v3-0",
      -  "chirp-v3-5",
      -  "chirp-v4",
      -  "chirp-v4-5",
      -  "chirp-v4-5-plus",
      -  "chirp-v5",
      -  "chirp-v5-5"
      -]New value: +[
      +  "chirp-v6",
      +  "chirp-v6-wild",
      +  "chirp-v6-mini",
      +  "chirp-v3-0",
      +  "chirp-v3-5",
      +  "chirp-v4",
      +  "chirp-v4-5",
      +  "chirp-v4-5-plus",
      +  "chirp-v5",
      +  "chirp-v5-5"
      +]
  2. Addedv0.1.5
  3. Removedv0.1.3
  4. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the return value ('Task ID and the extended audio information'), which implies an asynchronous operation, but does not explicitly disclose async behavior, polling requirements, or side effects on the original audio. The mention of callback_url in the schema hints at async but the description does not reinforce it.

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, a bulleted usage list, and a returns note. It is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. No wasted sentences, though it could be slightly trimmed without losing value.

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 6-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core use case, typical scenarios, and follow-up action. It does not explicitly mention async polling or error handling, but the output schema and Task ID return cover some of that. Overall, it is fairly complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds contextual value by explaining the use case and pointing to suno_concat_music, but does not elaborate on parameters beyond what the schema already describes. The lyric marker guidance is present in the schema as well, so the description adds minimal incremental meaning.

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 opens with a clear verb+object: 'Extend an existing song from a specific timestamp with new lyrics.' It differentiates from siblings by specifying it works on previously generated songs and explicitly mentions suno_concat_music as a follow-up for merging segments, which distinguishes it from generation, cover, and upload tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Includes a dedicated 'Use this when' section with three concrete scenarios (too short, add bridge/outro, build longer song piece by piece). It also directs to suno_concat_music after multiple extensions, providing an explicit alternative for a related but distinct operation. This meets the 'explicit when/alternatives' bar.

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