Skip to main content
Glama
BlockRunAI

BlockRun MCP

Official
by BlockRunAI
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

blockrun_music

Generate a full-length MP3 music track from a text prompt describing style, mood, or genre. Payment settles only when the finished track is delivered as a permanent URL.

Instructions

Generate music tracks via BlockRun x402 (async, client-polled).

Generates a full-length ~3 minute MP3 track. Takes 1-3 minutes to complete. The tool submits the job and, for slower tracks, polls until it is ready. On the Base wallet payment settles only when a finished track is returned — if the job fails you are not charged; if this client gives up while a paid request is still in flight the gateway may still settle, and the error text says so. On Solana and on the account rail the job is billed when the gateway ACCEPTS it, so a job that later fails or outlives the poll budget is still charged — the error text says so and names the job, which stays claimable for ~48h.

Model: minimax/music-2.5+ ($0.1575/track, up to ~4 min)

Returns a permanent BlockRun-hosted URL.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modelNoMusic model to useminimax/music-2.5+
lyricsNoCustom lyrics. Cannot be used with instrumental: true
promptYesMusic style, mood, or description. E.g. 'upbeat synthwave with neon pads', 'chill lo-fi beats', 'epic orchestral film score'
agent_idNoAgent identifier for budget tracking and enforcement.
instrumentalNoGenerate without vocals (default: true)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.45.1
    • removedInput schema / $schema
      Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.40.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / model / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "minimax/music-2.5+",
-  "minimax/music-2.5"
-]New value: +[
+  "minimax/music-2.5+"
+]
  3. First observedv0.16.2

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes far beyond the sparse annotations (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false) by offering rich behavioral detail: async client-polled execution, 1-3 minute duration, per-rail billing differences (Base vs Solana/account), failure charge policies, job claimability for ~48h, and a permanent URL return. This is exactly the type of context that helps an agent anticipate side effects and cost implications.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides critical operational details. While the billing paragraph is long, every sentence carries information the agent needs (e.g., charge timing, failure handling, job recovery). It is structured into clear sections and avoids fluff, though it could be slightly tightened by moving pricing into a single line.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is moderately complex (async, polling, multiple payment rails) and has no output schema, so the description carries full responsibility for return values and behavior. It covers the output (permanent URL), duration, cost, failure modes, and post-hoc job claimability. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether to call this tool or interpret its results is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter already has meaningful documentation. The tool description adds only the model default and pricing context ('minimax/music-2.5+ ($0.1575/track)'), which is somewhat useful but not essential for parameter understanding. It does not clarify any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Generate music tracks via BlockRun x402' – a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling content tools (blockrun_video, blockrun_image, blockrun_speech) by naming the output type (music tracks) and specifying 'full-length ~3 minute MP3 track'. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage context is implied rather than explicit. The description states it generates music tracks and details billing/polling behavior, but it never says 'use this when you need music, use blockrun_speech for speech' or provides any alternative guidance. There are no exclusions or conditions for choosing this over siblings, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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