Retrieve detailed information about a specific custom music model by providing its unique ID. This tool fetches the model's configuration and metadata for review or further use.
Retrieve a single custom music model by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID of the custom music model to retrieve. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.15Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral information. 'Retrieve' clearly communicates a read-only operation with no mutation side effects, which is the main behavioral concern for a get-by-ID tool. It does not go further into error or auth behavior, but the operation itself is transparent.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The scope constraint ('single', 'by ID') appears immediately, and every word contributes to operational clarity.
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?
For a one-parameter get-by-ID tool with an output schema available, the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. No additional return-format or side-effect details are necessary.
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?
The schema covers 100% of the parameter: id is already documented as 'ID of the custom music model to retrieve.' The description only restates this as 'by ID' and adds no new semantic detail, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description names a specific verb (Retrieve), a concrete resource (custom music model), and a precise scope (a single one, by ID). This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like suno_list_custom_models (many models) or suno_create_custom_model/suno_delete_custom_model.
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 by-ID phrasing implies the right usage context: you have an ID and want one model. However, the description gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this over list_custom_models or other siblings, and it does not state exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.