Suno MCP

by David-J-Shibley

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: checking status, downloading, generating from description or custom mode, checking credits, listing recent songs, and waiting for generation. The two generate tools are well-differentiated by simple vs. custom mode with auto vs. user-provided lyrics and style.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent 'suno_verb_noun' pattern with lowercase and underscores (e.g., suno_check_status, suno_generate_song). The naming is predictable and clearly indicates each tool's action and target.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, the server is well-scoped for managing Suno song generation. Each tool serves a necessary function without redundancy or bloat, covering generation, status, download, credits, and listing.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers the core song creation lifecycle: generating (two modes), monitoring status, downloading, checking credits, and listing recent songs. Missing features like canceling generation or deleting songs are minor gaps that don't severely hinder typical workflows.
Average 3.7/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored. Lowest: 3/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 4 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on June 18, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic function (listing songs) but does not indicate whether the operation is read-only, what authentication is needed, or any rate limits or side effects.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. Every word is essential, and there is no redundant or extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description is minimally viable but lacks context on usage and behavior. It does not explain pagination or ordering, which are important for a listing tool. The output schema may cover return values, but the description still feels incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the tool description does not mention any parameters. The only parameter (page) is described in the schema, but the description adds no additional meaning, failing to compensate for the lack of coverage.
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 the action (list), the resource (recent Suno songs), and the scope (from your account library). It effectively distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like suno_generate_song or suno_download_song, which have different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as suno_check_status or suno_wait_for_songs. There is no mention of prerequisites, when to call it, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'check generation status' without disclosing whether it's read-only, error handling, rate limits, or polling behavior. Minimal behavioral insight.
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?
Description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. Every word adds 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 simple status-check tool with one parameter and an output schema (likely explaining return values), the description is largely sufficient. Lacks edge cases but adequate given low complexity.
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 0% meaning the tool description adds no parameter info, but the schema itself includes a description for 'song_ids'. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since schema covers the parameter 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?
Description states verb 'check', resource 'generation status', and scope 'one or more song IDs'. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like suno_wait_for_songs (blocking) and suno_get_recent (listing).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as suno_wait_for_songs. The description lacks any 'when to use' or 'when not to use' context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions 'completed song' implying incompleteness fails, but does not disclose file overwrite behavior, size limits, or auth requirements. Transparency is minimal.
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?
The description is a single sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, making it concise and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple but lacks details about return values (output schema exists but not discussed) and edge cases like file overwriting. Given no annotations, it is adequate but not thorough.
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 input schema provides descriptions for all three parameters (song_id, folder, filename), so the description adds no extra meaning. With full schema coverage, baseline is 3.
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 the tool downloads a completed song as MP3 to a local folder. It uses specific verbs and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like song generation or status checks.
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?
The description implies usage when a completed song ID is available, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No mention of prerequisites or companion tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It discloses that Suno writes lyrics automatically, which is a key behavior. However, it omits other traits such as rate limits, cost, or constraints on description length, limiting transparency.
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?
The description is two concise sentences with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and adds a critical behavioral note efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description does not mention return values or expected output. For a simple generation tool with one parameter, the description covers input but omits output expectations, leaving some incompleteness.
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 description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema. The schema's parameter description is nearly identical ('Describe the song; Suno writes lyrics automatically'). Although schema coverage is 0% by context, the schema itself provides adequate semantics, so the tool description's redundancy earns a baseline score of 3.
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 the tool generates a song from a text description, explicitly naming it as 'Simple/Inspiration Mode' and noting that Suno writes lyrics automatically. This distinguishes it from sibling suno_generate_song, which likely offers more control.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like suno_generate_song. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description discloses important behavioral traits: it opens/uses a browser, requires a Suno login, and runs directly on suno.com without third-party APIs. It also states that it returns clip IDs. However, it does not mention potential side effects, rate limits, or the asynchronous nature (implicitly handled by polling suggestion).
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?
The description is three short sentences, with the main purpose in the first sentence. Each sentence adds essential information: what the tool does, how it operates, and what to do with the output. No unnecessary words.
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?
Despite lacking annotations, the description covers the core functionality, operational context (browser login, direct suno.com), and return value (clip IDs). It also suggests the next step. It could mention limitations like song length or language, but is sufficient for selection and invocation.
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 input schema already provides detailed descriptions for both parameters ('lyrics' and 'style'), including examples. The description only adds that it uses 'custom lyrics and style (Custom Mode)', which does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Given high schema coverage, a score 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 clearly states the tool's action ('Generate a song') and resource ('with custom lyrics and style'), explicitly naming 'Custom Mode'. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'suno_generate_from_description' which generates from a description rather than explicit lyrics and style.
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 description provides clear context: it uses a browser with Suno login and runs through suno.com. It also tells the agent what to do next ('use suno_wait_for_songs to poll'). It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the 'Custom Mode' label implies an alternative (probably description mode).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses the authentication dependency ('uses your logged-in suno.com session') but omits other behavioral traits like rate limits, caching, or error handling. More context would be beneficial.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and auth context. No wasted words.
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?
Given low complexity, zero parameters, and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could briefly mention what the balance is used for, but current version suffices.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist; schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter info, which is acceptable. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.
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 the tool checks the Suno account credit balance, using the logged-in session. It uses specific verb 'check' and resource 'credit balance', distinguishing it from siblings like suno_generate_song.
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 description implies use for checking credits, but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. However, the purpose is so clear that exclusions are unnecessary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the polling behavior, timeout, and return type. It could mention behavior on timeout expiration, but the core behavior is well communicated.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence contains all essential information: wait, timeout, and return value. No waste or redundancy.
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?
Given the presence of an output schema and the tool's simplicity, the description is adequately complete. It could mention timeout behavior but is not necessary for basic use.
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 tool description does not mention the parameter; the schema provides a description for 'song_ids'. Since schema description coverage is high (100%), baseline is 3. No additional meaning is added beyond the schema.
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 the action (wait), the resource (songs), the condition (finish generating), a timeout (3 minutes), and the output (audio URLs). It is specific and distinguishes from siblings like suno_check_status (which likely does not wait) and generation tools.
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 description implicitly guides when to use (after initiating generation) and includes the timeout constraint. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the purpose and context are clear enough for an agent to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![suno-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/David-J-Shibley/suno-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/David-J-Shibley/suno-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![suno-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/David-J-Shibley/suno-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/David-J-Shibley/suno-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/David-J-Shibley/suno-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server