Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Suno MCP

Suno MCP

by David-J-Shibley
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

suno_check_status

Check the generation status of Suno songs by providing song IDs. Receive updates on completion or processing progress.

Instructions

Check generation status for one or more song IDs.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "params": "<params>"
    },
    "name": "suno_check_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
paramsYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools