Expand a style description into genre tags for Suno and return the result in one synchronous call.
Run a synchronous Suno operation on RunAPI (boost style). Returns the operation result.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| description | Yes | Style description to expand into genre tags. Declared type: string. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesPrevious value: -falseNew value: +{}Input schema / properties / description / descriptionPrevious value: -"Style description to expand into genre tags."New value: +"Style description to expand into genre tags. Declared type: string."v0.3.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It mentions that the operation is synchronous and returns a result, which is useful, but it omits whether the operation mutates anything, what permissions or credits it requires, and whether it has any side effects or rate limits. For an external API operation, this is a significant gap.
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 two short sentences with no wasted words and is front-loaded with the operation type. However, its extreme brevity borders on under-specification rather than optimal conciseness.
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?
Given the crowded music-tool suite, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is not complete enough for reliable tool selection. It fails to explain what 'boost style' produces or how it differs from nearby tools like generate_lyrics or inspire_music. The parameter schema helps, but the overall definition leaves the agent with unresolved questions.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already fully documents the single 'description' parameter, including its role in expanding a style into genre tags. The main description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a synchronous Suno operation called 'boost style,' but it does not explain what boosting a style actually does. The purpose is vague and does not distinguish this tool from the many other music-generation siblings. The parameter schema clarifies it expands a style description into genre tags, but the main description alone leaves the agent guessing.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 20 sibling tools for music tasks, the description provides no context, prerequisites, or routing information. It simply says to run the operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.