Clone a voice from a public audio URL to create a reusable voice model for Suno music generation. Provide the recording URL and optional voice name.
Run a synchronous Suno operation on RunAPI (generate voice). Returns the operation result.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Voice name. Declared type: string. | |
| source_audio_url | Yes | Public URL of the voice recording to clone. Declared type: string. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesPrevious value: -falseNew value: +{}Input schema / properties / name / descriptionPrevious value: -"Voice name."New value: +"Voice name. Declared type: string."Input schema / properties / source_audio_url / descriptionPrevious value: -"Public URL of the voice recording to clone."New value: +"Public URL of the voice recording to clone. 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 does disclose that the call is synchronous (blocking) and that it returns an operation result, which is modestly useful, but it omits auth/permission needs, latency or rate-limit expectations, and any failure behavior for a generation endpoint.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded and free of padding, though the trailing "Returns the operation result" is near-vacuous given no output schema exists to describe.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain cloning behavior, required inputs, and expected outcome; instead it gives generic "synchronous operation" language. An agent lacks enough context to invoke this confidently versus its siblings.
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% with only 2 parameters, so the schema already documents name and source_audio_url. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which puts it at the baseline 3.
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 largely restates the tool name ("generate voice") and adds only provider boilerplate ("Suno operation on RunAPI"). It does not distinguish this from siblings like generate_persona or text_to_music, nor does it say the operation clones a voice from a supplied recording. An agent cannot tell what specifically this tool produces beyond the name.
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?
No when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite several plausible siblings (generate_persona, text_to_music, inspire_music). It does not state that a public source audio URL is a prerequisite, which is the key selection criterion for this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.