Skip to main content
Glama
runapi-ai

suno-mcp

by runapi-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

generate_lyrics

Create lyrics for Suno music tracks from a text prompt. Returns a task ID, status, and result payload.

Instructions

Create a Suno task on RunAPI (generate lyrics). Returns a task id, status, and result payload.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
waitNoPoll until the task reaches a terminal status.
promptYesLyrics generation prompt. Declared type: string.
timeout_msNo
callback_urlNoWebhook URL for async notifications. Declared type: string.
poll_interval_msNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.4.0
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +{}
    • changedInput schema / properties / callback_url / description
      Previous value: -"Webhook URL for async notifications."New value: +"Webhook URL for async notifications. Declared type: string."
    • changedInput schema / properties / prompt / description
      Previous value: -"Lyrics generation prompt."New value: +"Lyrics generation prompt. Declared type: string."
  2. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.3.2
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / properties / poll_interval_ms / maximum
      Added value: +9007199254740991
    • addedInput schema / properties / timeout_ms / maximum
      Added value: +9007199254740991
  3. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.2.4
    • addedInput schema / properties / callback_url / description
      Added value: +"Webhook URL for async notifications."
    • addedInput schema / properties / prompt / description
      Added value: +"Lyrics generation prompt."
    • addedInput schema / required
      Added value: +[
+  "prompt"
+]
  4. Addedv0.1.2

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden, but it does usefully disclose the task-based async model and the return payload (task id, status, result). It says nothing about auth needs, rate limits, cost, or how the wait/poll parameters affect blocking behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the return shape. No filler, though '(generate lyrics)' partially restates the tool name.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description's mention of task id/status/result payload is valuable and fills that gap. However, for a 5-parameter async task tool with no annotations, it omits usage context, permissions, and behavioral details around polling/waiting.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 60% (timeout_ms and poll_interval_ms are undocumented, prompt has only a placeholder description), and the description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever. It does not compensate for the gap as required at this coverage level.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Create) and resource (Suno task for lyrics generation), so the agent knows this initiates a lyrics-generation job. It is distinguishable from sibling get_timestamped_lyrics (a fetch) and blend_lyrics (a merger), though it doesn't explicitly name 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 when-to-use guidance is offered and no alternatives are named, despite several overlapping siblings (get_timestamped_lyrics, blend_lyrics, inspire_music). The agent is left to infer that this is the entry point for new lyrics.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools