Poll multiple Suno task IDs at once to get a summarized status overview. Submit a list of task IDs and receive their current status in a single response.
Summarize poll status for a list of task ids in one call (free).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_ids | Yes | task ids to poll |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool 'summarize[s] poll status' and is 'free', but does not disclose what the summary contains, whether it handles errors per task, rate limits, or the nature of the return value. For a polling tool with no annotations, this is thin.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core action and batch benefit, with 'free' as a useful extra. It is concise and efficient, though slightly terse; a bit more context on what 'summarize' returns would not hurt.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter polling tool, the description is minimally adequate: it tells the agent what to pass and what the tool does. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves the return shape and failure behavior unspecified, which an agent would need for robust use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%: the only parameter, task_ids, is already described as 'task ids to poll'. The description adds no new parameter-specific semantics beyond framing them as a batch ('list... in one call'), so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states a specific verb ('Summarize') and resource ('poll status for a list of task ids'), and 'in one call' distinguishes it from single-task polling. It could more explicitly contrast with siblings like suno_poll, but the intent is clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'in one call' implies use when you have multiple task ids to batch-poll, and '(free)' hints at a cost advantage. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives, leaving the agent to infer when this beats suno_poll or suno_wait.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.