Create one-shot or looping sound effects from a text description, with optional BPM and musical key settings to guide the generated audio.
Create a one-shot or looping sound effect. Optional bpm and musical key guide the result.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bpm | No | ||
| key | No | ||
| model | No | chirp-v5-5 | |
| sound | Yes | Description of the sound effect. | |
| sound_type | Yes | ||
| audio_format | No | ||
| callback_url | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.25Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, yet it says nothing about this being an asynchronous generation job, what callback_url does, whether results must be polled via suno_get_task, cost, or rate limits. It discloses only that bpm/key are optional guides.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, with no filler. Brevity comes at the cost of coverage rather than from trimming redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but with 7 parameters, 14% schema coverage, and no annotations, an agent still lacks guidance on model selection, output format, and asynchronous delivery. Incomplete for a tool of this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 14% (just the 'sound' field), so the description must compensate. It mentions bpm, key, and the one-shot/loop choice but leaves the 10-value model enum, audio_format, and callback_url completely unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('Create a ... sound effect') and immediately scopes it to the two sound types. It is clearly distinct from the many music-generation siblings, though it does not explicitly name them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description never says when to pick this over suno_generate_music, suno_generate_inspo, or suno_generate_custom_music, nor any prerequisites. The only implied guidance is the one-shot vs loop distinction, which is already the sound_type enum.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.