Skip to main content
Glama
elibarnett

kie-mcp

by elibarnett
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

add_instrumental

Add instrumental backing to uploaded vocal audio via Suno.

Instructions

Add instrumental backing to uploaded vocal audio via Suno.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tagsNoStyle tags for the instrumental
waitNoSet false to submit and return immediately with the task_id (async mode) — then poll with check_task and fetch with download_result. Recommended for long generations to avoid client-side watchdog timeouts.
modelNoV5
titleNo
filenameNo
uploadUrlYesURL of vocal audio
max_creditsNoRefuse to submit if the estimated cost exceeds this many credits (overrides KIE_MAX_CREDITS_PER_CALL). Estimates come from published rates; kie bills the actual amount.
download_dirNoAbsolute directory to save the file(s) into (created if missing). Defaults to the server's kie/assets/raw/. Must be absolute — the MCP server's working directory is not the caller's.
negativeTagsNo
estimate_onlyNoReturn the estimated credit cost WITHOUT submitting anything. Use before expensive runs (video, 4K, 1080p upgrades, layer splits).
max_wait_secondsNoOverride the blocking-mode polling budget in seconds (default: audio 300). Ignored when wait=false.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv5.8.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / estimate_only
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Return the estimated credit cost WITHOUT submitting anything. Use before expensive runs (video, 4K, 1080p upgrades, layer splits).",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / max_credits
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Refuse to submit if the estimated cost exceeds this many credits (overrides KIE_MAX_CREDITS_PER_CALL). Estimates come from published rates; kie bills the actual amount.",
+  "type": "number"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv5.5.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / model / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "V3_5",
-  "V4",
-  "V4_5",
-  "V4_5PLUS",
-  "V4_5ALL",
-  "V5",
-  "V5_5"
-]New value: +[
+  "V4",
+  "V4_5",
+  "V4_5PLUS",
+  "V4_5ALL",
+  "V5",
+  "V5_5",
+  "V6",
+  "V6_MINI",
+  "V6_WILD"
+]
  3. First observedv4.7.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it adds almost nothing beyond the provider name. It does not state that this is a paid generation consuming credits, does not mention sync-vs-async behavior, output artifacts, or any permissions/API-key requirements — all operational detail lives in the schema parameter descriptions rather than the tool description.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is good structure. It is arguably too terse for an 11-parameter generation tool with no annotations, but nothing in it is wasted.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a paid, multi-parameter generation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete: an agent gets no sense of cost implications, blocking vs. async behavior, or what is returned. The schema fills some of this gap, but the description itself leaves the operational picture mostly unstated.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 11 parameters at 64% schema coverage, the description contributes zero parameter meaning — it never mentions tags, model, negativeTags, title, filename, or the wait/estimate_only controls. The schema documents several key fields, but the undocumented ones (model, negativeTags, title, filename) are left unexplained in both places.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb+resource ("Add instrumental backing"), names the required input (uploaded vocal audio) and the provider (Suno). An agent can distinguish this from generate_music, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with the obvious mirror sibling add_vocals, so it stops short of a 5.

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 precondition is implied — you must already have uploaded vocal audio, which is why uploadUrl is the only required field. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to alternatives like add_vocals, generate_music, or cover_audio, so the agent must infer routing 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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools