Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
sing-mcp

sing-mcp

by fancyduck010
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

cover_song

Creates a cover of a requested song in a cloned voice by replacing vocals while keeping the original melody and backing track, then returns an MP3 with timed lyrics.

Instructions

用你自己的声音翻唱一首歌：照原曲的旋律、断句和伴奏，只把人声换成你的。song 写歌名（可带歌手）或网易云链接（music.163.com、163cn.tv 短链接、App 分享出来的整段文字都行）；手里有音频文件就写 file（运行这个服务的电脑上的路径）。一般一两分钟，每首消耗 30 声线积分，一次只唱一首。成品是一个 mp3，连同带时间的歌词一起返回，把链接交给主人就能听。只给主人自己听，不要公开发布。

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

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

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fileNo
songNo
titleNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose runtime (one to two minutes), cost (30 voice credits per song), a one-song-per-call limit, and the return shape (mp3 plus timed lyrics with links). It does not cover authorization needs or failure modes, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

It leads with the core action and then layers input guidance, cost, and output in a compact block. Nearly every sentence earns its place, though the unexplained title parameter is a structural omission.

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 three-parameter generation tool with no annotations or output schema, it covers output format, cost, duration, and privacy sufficiently to invoke correctly. The missing title semantics and any retry/failure guidance are the remaining gaps.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for song (name with optional artist, NetEase links, 163cn.tv short links, or full App share text) and file (a path on the service machine). The third parameter, title, is never explained, leaving a real gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource: cover a song in your own voice while preserving the original melody, phrasing, and accompaniment. The action and output are concrete and distinguishable from siblings like list_voices and points.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It gives explicit routing between the song and file inputs, notes one song per run, and adds a privacy constraint limiting playback to the owner rather than public release. An agent knows both how to choose inputs and how to handle the result.

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