Skip to main content
Glama
elibarnett

kie-mcp

by elibarnett
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

cover_audio

Create an AI cover from uploaded audio — custom vocals, style, and instrumentation via Suno.

Instructions

Create an AI cover from uploaded audio — custom vocals, style, and instrumentation via Suno.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
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
styleNo
titleNo
promptNoDescription of desired cover style
filenameNo
uploadUrlYesURL of audio to cover
customModeNo
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.
vocalGenderNoVocal gender preference
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.
instrumentalNo
negativeTagsNoTags to avoid in the cover
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 burden, yet it says nothing about credit cost, latency/blocking behavior, where output lands, or whether the operation is idempotent. The schema parameters (max_credits, estimate_only, download_dir) hint at these traits, but the description body itself discloses none of them.

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 zero waste and a clear verb-resource-mechanism order. It is efficient, though arguably undersized for a 15-parameter tool with no annotations, which keeps it from a 5.

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 15-parameter, 60%-covered, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description is too thin: it omits cost/credit implications, the async workflow, output location defaults, and the relationship to sibling extend/add_vocals tools. An agent could invoke it but would miss important operational context.

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 coverage is 60% with 15 parameters, so the schema does much of the work. The description's mention of vocals, style, and instrumentation loosely maps to vocalGender/style/instrumental, but adds no syntax, format, or interaction details beyond what the schema fields already state – roughly baseline for this coverage level.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (create an AI cover from uploaded audio) and names the key axes: custom vocals, style, instrumentation via Suno. It is reasonably distinguishable from siblings like generate_music or add_vocals, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with them, so it falls 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 Guidelines2/5

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

The description offers no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or named alternatives among the many sibling generation tools (generate_music, extend_music, add_vocals, upload_extend_audio). The async/polling advice exists only inside the schema's `wait` parameter, not in the tool description itself.

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