Skip to main content
Glama
elibarnett

kie-mcp

by elibarnett
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

generate_mashup

Combine two Suno tracks into a single new track by providing their audio IDs from previous generations. Specify an optional prompt to guide the mashup direction.

Instructions

NEW — Mashup up to 2 Suno tracks into one new track. Provide audioIds from previous generations.

Input Schema

TableJSON 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
promptNoOptional prompt for mashup direction
taskIdNoSource task ID
audioIdsYesUp to 2 audio IDs to mashup
filenameNo
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.
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. 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"
+]
  2. First observedv4.7.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
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. It discloses only that a new track is produced; it says nothing about credit consumption, whether the source tracks are preserved, or the blocking/async default behavior referenced only inside the schema.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the required input. The 'NEW —' marker is minor noise, and otherwise every phrase earns its place.

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 an 8-parameter generative tool with no output schema and no annotations, this is thin. Missing are the cost/credit implications, model-version tradeoffs, and any hint of the async workflow, all of which an agent needs before invoking it.

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 75%, so most parameters are already documented in the schema (including the detailed wait/polling and download_dir notes). The description adds one genuinely useful semantic: audioIds must come from previous generations. Beyond that it adds nothing over the structured fields.

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 (mashup) and resource (up to 2 Suno tracks into one new track), which an agent can distinguish from sibling generation tools. However, it never contrasts itself with the closest siblings (extend_music, cover_audio, add_instrumental), so differentiation is left to inference.

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 clause 'Provide audioIds from previous generations' gives one prerequisite (source audio must already exist), which is useful. But there is no guidance on when to mashup versus extending, covering, or layering a track, and no exclusions or alternative routing.

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