Skip to main content
Glama
runapi-ai

suno-mcp

by runapi-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_timestamped_lyrics

Fetch timestamped lyrics for Suno audio using an audio ID, with an optional source task ID for context.

Instructions

Run a synchronous Suno operation on RunAPI (get timestamped lyrics). Returns the operation result.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
source_task_idNoRunAPI Task id that produced the audio. Required when the audio id alone does not identify the source. Declared type: string.
source_audio_idYesAudio id within the source Task, or a RunAPI audio resource id returned by a previous request. Declared type: string.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.4.0
    • changedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Previous value: -falseNew value: +{}
    • changedInput schema / properties / source_audio_id / description
      Previous value: -"Audio id within the source Task, or a RunAPI audio resource id returned by a previous request."New value: +"Audio id within the source Task, or a RunAPI audio resource id returned by a previous request. Declared type: string."
    • changedInput schema / properties / source_task_id / description
      Previous value: -"RunAPI Task id that produced the audio. Required when the audio id alone does not identify the source."New value: +"RunAPI Task id that produced the audio. Required when the audio id alone does not identify the source. Declared type: string."
  2. Addedv0.3.6

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation is synchronous and returns a result, which is useful, but it omits permissions, side effects, error behavior, credit consumption, and what the result actually contains.

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 very short, front-loaded, and contains no redundant filler. Its compressed structure is appropriate, though the generic wrapper sentence contributes little beyond stating that a synchronous RunAPI operation is performed.

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?

There are no annotations and no output schema, so the description should do more to explain operational context and return behavior. It only says 'Returns the operation result,' which is too vague for an agent to understand what timestamped lyrics output will look like or how to use it reliably.

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 both parameters are already well documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, syntax, or constraints, making the baseline score of 3 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 states a clear verb and resource: getting timestamped lyrics via a synchronous Suno operation on RunAPI. It is understandable on its own, but it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like generate_lyrics or blend_lyrics, leaving the agent to infer the distinction from the name alone.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no conditions for selecting it over other lyric-related or audio-related siblings. It only identifies the operation type, leaving usage entirely implicit.

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