MusicGPT MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, such as audio_to_midi for format conversion and generate_music for AI music creation. However, some overlap exists between denoise_audio, deecho_audio, and dereverb_audio, which all target audio cleanup and could be confused for similar noise reduction tasks, though their descriptions clarify specific focuses.
Naming Consistency4/5
The naming follows a consistent snake_case pattern with clear verb_noun structures, such as convert_audio_format and extract_key_bpm. Minor deviations include get_all_voices and get_conversion_by_id using 'get' instead of a more specific verb, but overall the pattern is predictable and readable.
Tool Count3/5
With 24 tools, the count is borderline high for a music processing server, as it may feel heavy and overwhelming for agents. While the tools cover diverse audio tasks, a more streamlined set of 15-20 tools could improve coherence without sacrificing functionality.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for music and audio processing, including creation (generate_music), editing (cut_audio, remix_audio), analysis (extract_key_bpm), conversion (audio_to_midi), and voice handling (text_to_speech, voice_changer). No obvious gaps are present, supporting a full workflow from input to output.
Average 3/5 across 24 of 24 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the conversion action but doesn't describe key traits like whether it's a synchronous or asynchronous process (implied by the webhook_url parameter), potential rate limits, error conditions, or output details. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely involves processing time and callback mechanisms.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, achieving optimal conciseness for such a straightforward tool.
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?
Given the complexity of audio-to-MIDI conversion, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like processing time, output format details, or error handling, which are crucial for an agent to use this tool effectively in a workflow.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (audio_url and webhook_url) clearly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the conversion process or format specifics. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('convert') and resource ('audio to MIDI format'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'convert_audio_format' or 'transcribe_audio', which could also involve audio format changes or processing, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any specific scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as when to choose this over other audio conversion tools in the sibling list, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'change' implies a mutation, it doesn't specify whether this is a destructive operation, what permissions are needed, whether it processes locally or via API, or what happens upon completion (e.g., returns processed audio or just confirmation). The mention of 'playback speed' suggests it might be a non-destructive effect, but this isn't explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that states the core functionality without any fluff. It's perfectly front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a modified audio file, a processing ID, or just a confirmation), doesn't mention error conditions or limitations, and provides no behavioral context. Given the complexity of audio processing and lack of structured data, more completeness is needed.
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?
The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema (which has 100% coverage). It doesn't explain the relationship between parameters (e.g., that 'webhook_url' is optional for asynchronous processing) or provide additional context about valid ranges for 'speed_factor'. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('change') and resource ('playback speed of audio'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'remix_audio' or 'extend_audio' which might also affect audio playback characteristics, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that manipulate audio (e.g., 'remix_audio', 'extend_audio', 'cut_audio'), there's no indication of when speed adjustment is appropriate versus other transformations, leaving the agent without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states the conversion action but doesn't disclose traits like processing time, file size limits, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether it's destructive (likely not, but unspecified). The mention of 'webhook_url' in the schema hints at asynchronous processing, but the description doesn't explain this behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Convert audio file to a different format'), making it immediately understandable. No structural issues or redundancy are present.
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?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 3 parameters and potential complexity (e.g., asynchronous processing via webhook). It lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, or output expectations, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to infer usage correctly.
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 description coverage is 100%, providing clear documentation for all parameters. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond the schema's details (e.g., it doesn't explain format compatibility or webhook usage). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to heavily.
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 clearly states the verb 'convert' and resource 'audio file', specifying the action of format transformation. It distinguishes from siblings like 'change_audio_speed' or 'transcribe_audio' by focusing on format conversion rather than processing or transcription. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'extract_audio' might also involve format changes).
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., file accessibility), exclusions (e.g., unsupported formats), or comparisons to siblings like 'audio_to_midi' (which converts to MIDI format) or 'extract_audio' (which might extract audio from video). Usage context is implied but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits such as processing time, output format, error handling, or rate limits. It mentions a webhook for completion but doesn't detail what happens during processing or on failure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by clearly stating the tool's function.
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?
Given the complexity of audio processing with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on what the tool returns, how errors are handled, or any constraints, making it incomplete for effective agent use.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how the voice_id affects style or what audio formats are supported. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('create') and resource ('cover version of a song'), specifying it involves different voice or style. It distinguishes from siblings like 'voice_changer' or 'sing_over_instrumental' by focusing on cover creation, but doesn't explicitly differentiate them.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'voice_changer' or 'sing_over_instrumental' is provided. The description implies usage for cover songs but lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 of behavioral disclosure. 'Remove echo from audio' implies a processing operation but doesn't specify whether it's destructive, requires authentication, has rate limits, or returns a result. It mentions a webhook for callback, hinting at asynchronous behavior, but this is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's function, making it easy to parse without unnecessary elaboration.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (audio processing with mutation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral traits like async processing. For a tool with 2 parameters and no structured safety hints, more context is needed to guide effective use.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('audio_url' and 'webhook_url'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as audio format requirements or webhook payload details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.
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 'Remove echo from audio' clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('echo from audio'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'denoise_audio' and 'dereverb_audio' by focusing on echo removal, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them. The purpose is unambiguous but could be more specific about scope.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as when echo removal is appropriate compared to denoising or dereverberation. With multiple audio processing siblings, this lack of differentiation leaves usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 of behavioral disclosure. While 'Remove background noise' implies a transformation, it doesn't disclose critical traits like whether this is a destructive operation, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what the output entails (e.g., format, quality changes). This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly, earning a perfect score for conciseness.
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?
Given the complexity of audio processing, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects, output format, error handling, or integration with sibling tools. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's full context and usage.
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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('audio_url', 'webhook_url') fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining parameter interactions or constraints. This meets the baseline score of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 'Remove background noise from audio' clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('background noise from audio'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'deecho_audio' or 'dereverb_audio' which might handle similar audio processing tasks, preventing a perfect score.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for use, or exclusions, and with multiple sibling tools for audio processing (e.g., 'deecho_audio', 'dereverb_audio'), the lack of differentiation leaves the agent without clear usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 of behavioral disclosure. While 'Remove reverb from audio' implies a processing action, it doesn't reveal whether this is a synchronous or asynchronous operation (the webhook_url parameter suggests async), what permissions or authentication might be required, potential rate limits, or what the output looks like. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to scan and understand immediately, which is ideal for efficient tool selection.
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?
Given the complexity of audio processing and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'remove reverb' entails operationally, what formats are supported, whether the processing is destructive, or what the result looks like. For a tool with no structured output information, this leaves too many unknowns for effective use.
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?
The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the input schema, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both 'audio_url' and 'webhook_url'. Since the schema fully documents the parameters, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to given the comprehensive schema.
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 'Remove reverb from audio' clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('reverb from audio'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'deecho_audio' or 'denoise_audio' that might handle similar audio processing tasks, which prevents a perfect score.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'deecho_audio' and 'denoise_audio' available, there's no indication of how 'dereverb_audio' differs in scope or application, leaving users to guess based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions AI generation and webhook callback, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this is a synchronous or asynchronous operation, what permissions or authentication might be needed, potential rate limits, quality of the AI continuation, or what happens if extension_duration isn't specified. The webhook_url parameter suggests asynchronous behavior, but this isn't explicitly stated.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with clear parameters in the schema. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning the asynchronous nature implied by the webhook_url parameter.
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 AI-powered audio extension tool with 3 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a new audio URL, processing status), doesn't clarify the asynchronous workflow, and provides no context about the AI model's capabilities or limitations. The combination of no annotations and no output schema creates significant gaps that the description doesn't address.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain expected audio formats, valid duration ranges, or webhook payload structure. With complete schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate even without extra param info in the description.
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 clearly states the action ('extend') and resource ('audio track') using AI for continuation. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cut_audio' or 'change_audio_speed' by focusing on generation-based extension rather than editing or transformation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'generate_music' or 'generate_sound_effect' which might also create audio content.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't specify if this is for seamless continuation of existing audio versus creating new content from scratch, or when to choose this over 'generate_music' for similar tasks. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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. It states what the tool does but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as processing time, file size limits, supported audio formats, error handling, or that it's an asynchronous operation (implied by the webhook_url parameter but not explained). This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It directly states the tool's function, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
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?
Given the complexity of audio processing and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects (e.g., async nature, limits), output details (e.g., format of extracted audio), or error conditions. For a tool with 3 parameters and no structured safety hints, more context is needed.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (audio_url, extraction_type, webhook_url) with descriptions and an enum for extraction_type. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by listing extraction types ('vocals, instruments, or specific stems'), but doesn't provide additional semantics like format details or usage examples.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Extract vocals, instruments, or specific stems from audio'. It specifies the verb ('extract') and resource ('audio'), and lists the types of extractions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cut_audio' or 'denoise_audio', which might also process audio but for different purposes.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., audio format requirements), when not to use it, or how it compares to siblings like 'audio_to_midi' or 'transcribe_audio'. Usage is implied by the purpose but lacks explicit context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions extraction but doesn't specify if this is a synchronous or asynchronous operation (e.g., due to the webhook_url parameter implying callback), what permissions or rate limits apply, or the format of the extracted data. This leaves key behavioral traits unclear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
Given the complexity of audio analysis, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the extracted key and BPM output looks like (e.g., numeric BPM, key notation), error handling, or dependencies on other tools. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to use it effectively.
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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (audio_url and webhook_url). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as supported audio formats or webhook payload details. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('extract') and resources ('musical key and BPM from audio'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'transcribe_audio' or 'audio_to_midi', which might also involve audio analysis but for different outputs, leaving room for potential confusion.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as whether it's for real-time analysis, batch processing, or specific audio formats. With many sibling tools available for audio manipulation, the lack of contextual usage hints is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool generates lyrics but doesn't cover aspects like output format (e.g., text, length, structure), quality expectations, potential rate limits, or any authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to invoke it effectively.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the purpose.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (generative, with no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., plain text, structured lyrics), potential limitations, or how it integrates with sibling tools. For a creative generation tool, more context is needed to guide effective use.
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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('prompt' and 'genre') well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'theme or prompt' and implying genre relevance, but doesn't provide additional context like examples or constraints. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('generate') and resource ('song lyrics'), and specifies it's based on a theme or prompt. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'generate_music' or 'text_to_speech', but the focus on lyrics is reasonably distinct. The description avoids tautology by not just restating the tool name.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'generate_music' or 'text_to_speech', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It implies usage for generating lyrics from a prompt, but offers no context for choosing among sibling tools that involve audio or music generation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions generation but doesn't describe what happens after generation (e.g., how the sound effect is delivered, whether it's saved or streamed), potential limitations, or any side effects. For a generation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward tool and gets directly to the point without unnecessary elaboration.
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 generation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what format the generated sound effect is in, how it's returned, whether there are quality or duration limits, or what happens with the webhook_url. The combination of missing behavioral context and output information creates significant gaps.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.
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 clearly states the verb 'generate' and the resource 'sound effects', specifying that it's from a text description. It distinguishes from siblings like 'generate_music' or 'text_to_speech' by focusing specifically on sound effects, but doesn't explicitly contrast with all alternatives.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'generate_music' or 'text_to_speech', nor does it mention prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action ('Fill in') but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, processing time, or output format (e.g., whether it returns a new audio file URL). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information concisely.
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?
Given the complexity of an AI-based audio inpainting tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like mutation effects, error handling, or return values, leaving gaps that could hinder an AI agent's ability to use the tool correctly in practice.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining how 'start_time' and 'end_time' define the gap or what happens if 'webhook_url' is omitted. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Fill in') and resource ('missing or corrupted parts of audio'), and it specifies the method ('using AI'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'denoise_audio' or 'dereverb_audio', which also address audio quality issues but through different methods.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios like handling gaps vs. noise, or compare to siblings such as 'denoise_audio' for noise removal or 'extend_audio' for lengthening audio. Without such context, users must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only mentions the action and goal. It lacks details on behavioral traits such as processing time, output format, error handling, or whether it's an async operation (implied by webhook_url but not explained). This is inadequate for a tool that likely involves complex audio processing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a basic overview, earning full marks for conciseness.
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?
Given the complexity of audio mastering, no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover what 'improve sound quality' entails, potential side effects, or return values, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (audio_url and webhook_url). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as audio format constraints or webhook payload details, resulting in the baseline score of 3.
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 clearly states the action ('Apply professional audio mastering') and the goal ('to improve sound quality'), which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like 'denoise_audio' or 'cut_audio'. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the resource (audio file) beyond what's implied, slightly reducing specificity.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'denoise_audio' or 'remix_audio', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The description only states what it does, leaving usage context entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'create a remix' implying a generative/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's asynchronous (suggested by webhook_url), requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what the output entails. This is a significant gap for a tool with potential complexity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly, which is ideal for conciseness.
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?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a tool that likely involves asynchronous processing (implied by webhook_url), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values, error handling, or behavioral context, leaving gaps for an AI agent to understand how to use it effectively.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description doesn't add meaning beyond the schema (e.g., explaining remix_style options or webhook_url usage), resulting in a baseline score of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states the action ('create a remix') and resource ('of an audio track'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_cover_song' or 'voice_changer' which also transform audio, missing specific distinction.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for audio processing (e.g., 'create_cover_song', 'voice_changer'), the description lacks context on appropriate scenarios or exclusions, leaving usage ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the basic action but fails to describe key traits: whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, what the return format looks like (e.g., list of voice objects with IDs), or any rate limits. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy.
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?
Given the complexity of a search operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., voice details, IDs), how results are structured, or any behavioral nuances like pagination or error handling. For a tool that likely returns a list of voices, more context is needed to use it effectively.
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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'voice_name' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining search semantics (e.g., partial matches, case sensitivity). Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
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 clearly states the action ('Search for') and resource ('voices'), with the qualifier 'by name' adding specificity. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from the sibling 'get_all_voices', which appears to be a related listing tool, leaving some ambiguity about when to use one versus the other.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_all_voices' or other audio-related tools. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether a voice library must be loaded or if this searches a global database, and offers no explicit when-not-to-use advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral context. It mentions 'AI-generated vocals' and 'callback upon completion' (via webhook_url parameter), but doesn't disclose execution time, rate limits, authentication needs, output format, or whether this is a synchronous/asynchronous operation. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely involves processing time and resource usage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently communicates the essential action.
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 tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a URL to the generated audio, job ID, or error formats), processing characteristics, or important behavioral aspects. The context signals indicate this is a non-trivial audio processing tool that needs more complete documentation.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain URL formats, voice_id selection process beyond referencing get_all_voices, or webhook behavior). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Add AI-generated vocals over an instrumental track', which specifies the action (add vocals) and resource (instrumental track). It distinguishes from siblings like 'text_to_speech' (no instrumental) and 'create_cover_song' (broader process), but doesn't explicitly contrast with all alternatives.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies usage for adding vocals to instrumentals, but doesn't mention when to choose this over similar tools like 'create_cover_song' or 'voice_changer', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool converts text to speech but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it's a synchronous or asynchronous operation (implied by the webhook_url parameter), rate limits, authentication needs, output format, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without any fluff or redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an AI agent to parse quickly.
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?
Given the complexity of a text-to-speech tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., async nature, audio format), doesn't reference related tools like 'get_all_voices', and provides no information on return values or error cases, leaving the agent with incomplete 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain voice_id selection strategies or webhook_url usage scenarios), meeting the baseline for high coverage.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('convert') and resource ('text to speech'), and it adds context about using AI voices. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'voice_changer' or 'sing_over_instrumental', which also involve voice/audio processing.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_all_voices' (which is referenced in the schema but not in the description) or explain scenarios where this tool is preferred over others such as 'generate_music' or 'transcribe_audio'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 of behavioral disclosure. While 'Transcribe' implies a read/transform operation, the description doesn't mention whether this is synchronous or asynchronous (though webhook_url suggests async), what permissions are needed, rate limits, supported audio formats, or error conditions. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise at 5 words, front-loading the core purpose immediately. Every word earns its place with zero waste or redundancy. The structure is optimal for quick comprehension while being complete enough to understand the basic function.
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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and multiple parameters, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what format the transcription returns, whether it's synchronous or asynchronous (webhook_url implies async but isn't explained), what audio formats are supported, or error handling. The agent would need to guess about important operational aspects.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter documentation through the schema alone, though the description contributes nothing extra.
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 clearly states the verb ('Transcribe') and resource ('speech from audio to text'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'text_to_speech' or 'extract_audio', which could cause confusion about when to use this specific transcription tool versus other audio processing options.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 23 sibling tools including 'text_to_speech' (reverse operation) and 'extract_audio' (similar audio processing), the agent receives no help distinguishing this transcription tool from other audio-related operations. No context about appropriate use cases is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 of behavioral disclosure. While 'cut or trim' implies a destructive/mutative operation, the description doesn't specify whether this modifies the original file, creates a new file, what format the output takes, whether it's synchronous or asynchronous (though the webhook_url parameter suggests async), or any rate limits/permission requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise - a single sentence that directly states the tool's function. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward audio processing tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutative audio processing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but leaves significant gaps: no information about output format, whether the operation is destructive to the original, error conditions, or how results are delivered (especially relevant given the webhook_url parameter).
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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('cut or trim') and resource ('audio'), and specifies the operation target ('to a specific duration'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'extract_audio' or 'remix_audio', which might also involve audio manipulation.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple audio manipulation tools available (like 'extract_audio', 'remix_audio', 'change_audio_speed'), there's no indication of when cutting/trimming is appropriate versus other operations, nor any prerequisites or constraints mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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. It mentions AI-based generation and output types (songs, instrumental tracks, vocal-only versions), but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as processing time, rate limits, authentication needs, file formats, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand operational constraints.
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?
The description is appropriately sized with two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: the first defines the tool, and the second elaborates on output variations. There is no redundant information, making it efficient, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.
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?
Given the complexity of a 7-parameter AI music generation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on output format (e.g., audio file type, duration), error conditions, latency, or usage limits. This makes it inadequate for an agent to fully understand how to invoke and handle the tool effectively.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by hinting at capabilities like creating songs with/without lyrics, which loosely relates to parameters like 'lyrics', 'make_instrumental', and 'vocal_only', but does not provide additional syntax, format details, or constraints beyond what the schema specifies.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Generate custom music from a text prompt using AI.' It specifies the verb ('generate'), resource ('custom music'), and mechanism ('from a text prompt using AI'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'generate_lyrics' or 'text_to_speech', which also involve AI generation from text.
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 description implies usage by mentioning capabilities ('create songs with or without lyrics, instrumental tracks, or vocal-only versions'), which suggests when to use it for music generation. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'generate_lyrics' for lyrics-only tasks or 'text_to_speech' for speech, and does not specify prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination, which is useful, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or the return format (e.g., structure of voice data). For a read operation tool, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action and resource. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, making it easy to parse while conveying essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (simple read operation with 2 parameters) and high schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, without annotations or an output schema, it fails to fully explain behavioral aspects like response format or limitations, leaving room for improvement in completeness.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters with defaults. The description adds no additional semantic details beyond implying pagination, which is already covered in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra value.
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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('paginated list of all available voices'), specifying the purpose for voice conversion and TTS. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'search_voices', which might offer filtering capabilities, leaving some ambiguity about when to use each tool.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_voices' or 'text_to_speech'. It mentions pagination but does not specify scenarios or prerequisites for usage, offering only basic functional context without comparative advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'convert[s] audio' but doesn't mention whether this is a synchronous or asynchronous operation (though 'webhook_url' hints at async), what permissions are required, rate limits, or what happens to the original audio. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary details. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
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?
Given the complexity of an AI voice conversion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., async nature, error handling), output format, or usage constraints, making it inadequate for safe and effective tool invocation.
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?
The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, which has 100% coverage. It doesn't explain the format of 'audio_url' (e.g., supported file types), how 'voice_id' relates to 'get_all_voices', or the callback mechanism for 'webhook_url'. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but no extra value is provided.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('convert audio') and resources ('from one voice to another using AI voice models'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'change_audio_speed' or 'convert_audio_format'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'sing_over_instrumental' or 'text_to_speech', which also involve voice transformations, so it falls short of a perfect 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 description implies usage for voice conversion tasks, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'sing_over_instrumental' or 'text_to_speech'. It mentions 'voice models' but doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage context somewhat vague.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only mentions what it returns (status, audio URL, metadata) without covering behavioral aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's idempotent. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and key return values. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read operation with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and returns but lacks details on error cases, response format beyond listed items, or prerequisites. With no annotations and moderate complexity, it's adequate but has clear gaps in providing complete context for reliable use.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'task ID or conversion ID' which aligns with schema descriptions, but doesn't provide additional context beyond what's in the structured fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'details of a conversion', specifying it's by 'task ID or conversion ID'. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on retrieval rather than creation or processing of audio, making the purpose specific and differentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when needing status or metadata for a conversion, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like checking conversion status through other means. It provides context by mentioning IDs but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-server-musicgpt MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/pasie15/mcp-server-musicgpt/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/pasie15/mcp-server-musicgpt)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-server-musicgpt MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/pasie15/mcp-server-musicgpt/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/pasie15/mcp-server-musicgpt)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/pasie15/mcp-server-musicgpt'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server