Suno MCP

by unforced

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

JavaScript

Local

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, but suno_generate_from_description and suno_generate_song could be confused as both generate songs, though one uses AI-written lyrics and the other custom lyrics. The other tools target clearly different operations like checking status, downloading, getting credits, and retrieving recent songs.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent snake_case pattern with the prefix 'suno_' and a clear verb_noun structure (e.g., check_status, download_song, generate_from_description). This predictability makes it easy for agents to understand and select tools.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, this server is well-scoped for managing Suno AI song generation, covering key operations like generation, status checking, downloading, and account management. Each tool earns its place without being overwhelming or insufficient.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers the core lifecycle of song generation (create, check status, download, wait) and account management (credits, recent songs), but lacks operations for deleting or managing songs post-generation, which could be a minor gap for full lifecycle coverage.
Average 3/5 across 7 of 7 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 status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Check status') but doesn't add context such as rate limits, authentication needs, expected response format, or whether it's a read-only operation. This is a significant gap for a 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 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.
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 checking song generation status, the description is incomplete. With no annotations and no output schema, it fails to explain behavioral traits like response format or error handling. It relies solely on the input schema, leaving gaps in understanding how to interpret results or handle failures.
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, with the 'ids' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't specify ID format or constraints), so it meets the baseline 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 verb ('Check') and resource ('generation status of songs'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'suno_wait_for_songs' or 'suno_get_recent', which might also involve status checking or retrieval operations, 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 prerequisites, timing (e.g., after generation), or compare to siblings like 'suno_wait_for_songs' for waiting or 'suno_get_recent' for recent songs, leaving the agent with no 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool downloads an MP3 file, implying a read/write operation that saves data locally, but doesn't cover critical aspects like permissions needed, file overwriting behavior, error handling (e.g., if the songId is invalid), or network/rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that modifies the filesystem.
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 action ('Download a song MP3') and specifies the destination. There is zero waste, and every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 (a download operation that writes files) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens on success (e.g., file path returned) or failure, nor does it cover behavioral traits like idempotency or side effects. For a tool with no structured safety hints, this is inadequate.
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 (songId, folder, filename) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as format details or examples. 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 action ('Download') and resource ('a song MP3'), specifying the destination ('to a specified folder'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'suno_check_status' or 'suno_generate_song' by focusing on downloading rather than generating or monitoring. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar tools (e.g., if there were a 'suno_download_playlist'), so it's not 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 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., needing a generated song first), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'suno_get_recent' for listing songs. Usage is implied from the action, but no explicit context is given.
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 states the tool generates a song and Suno AI writes lyrics, but lacks critical details: it doesn't mention whether this is a synchronous or asynchronous operation (contrasting with 'suno_wait_for_songs'), what the output format is, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. For a generative AI tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
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 with just two sentences that directly state the tool's function. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or unnecessary information. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently adds one clarifying detail about lyrics.
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 song generation (a creative AI task with potential async behavior) and the absence of both annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after generation, how to retrieve results, error handling, or relationship to sibling tools like 'suno_check_status' and 'suno_download_song'. For a tool in this context, more guidance 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 three parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema properties. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate coverage via the schema alone, with no extra value from 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 tool's purpose: 'Generate a song from a text description' specifies the verb (generate) and resource (song), and 'Suno AI will write the lyrics' adds detail about the AI's role. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling 'suno_generate_song', leaving some ambiguity about when to use each.
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 'suno_generate_song' or other siblings. It mentions Suno AI writes lyrics, but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual usage scenarios. The agent must infer usage from the name and parameters 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. It mentions that the tool 'Returns song IDs that can be used to check status,' which hints at an asynchronous process, but doesn't disclose critical details like whether this is a long-running operation, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what happens to generated songs over time.
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 concise with two sentences that cover the core functionality and return value. It's front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the second sentence about checking status could be slightly more specific about the asynchronous nature of the operation.
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 generative tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the asynchronous workflow (how status checking works), doesn't mention typical latency or limitations, and provides minimal guidance on parameter usage despite the schema having good coverage of technical details.
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 mentions 'custom lyrics and style' which aligns with the two required parameters, but adds no additional semantic context beyond what's already in the schema (which has 100% coverage). It doesn't explain relationships between parameters, provide examples of effective style tags, or clarify how lyrics structure tags affect generation quality.
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 a song with custom lyrics and style.' It specifies the verb 'generate' and resource 'song' with key inputs. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'suno_generate_from_description' which likely serves a similar purpose with different inputs.
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 mentions that returns can be used to check status, but doesn't explain when to choose this over 'suno_generate_from_description' or how it relates to other siblings like 'suno_check_status' and 'suno_download_song' in a workflow.
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 waiting for completion and returning URLs, but fails to describe key traits like whether it polls continuously, handles partial completions, or what happens on timeout. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's 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 directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for its function, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 waiting/polling tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., structure of URLs, error handling), behavioral details like polling intervals, or how it integrates with sibling tools, 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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters ('ids' and 'timeout') with descriptions and defaults. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the format of 'ids' or typical timeout values, resulting in a baseline score.
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 ('wait for songs to complete generation') and the outcome ('return their URLs'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'suno_check_status' or 'suno_download_song', which might have overlapping functionality, so it misses the highest clarity mark.
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 'suno_check_status' for status checking or 'suno_download_song' for downloading. It lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., after song generation) or exclusions, leaving 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. It states the tool retrieves account information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what the response format might look like. For a 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, clear sentence: 'Get the current Suno account credits and subscription info.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose, has no unnecessary words, and efficiently conveys the essential information without waste, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 (simple read operation) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the return values include (e.g., credit balance, subscription details, format) or any behavioral aspects like error cases. For a tool with no structured data to supplement it, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. In such cases, the baseline score is 4, as there's no additional burden for parameter explanation.
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: 'Get the current Suno account credits and subscription info.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and the resource ('Suno account credits and subscription info'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'suno_check_status' or 'suno_get_recent,' which might also retrieve account-related information, 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 prerequisites, context for usage, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'suno_check_status' or 'suno_get_recent.' This lack of explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information limits its helpfulness for an AI agent in selecting the correct tool.
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 it retrieves songs but doesn't describe key traits like pagination behavior (implied by the 'page' parameter), rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'recently' means (e.g., time frame). This leaves significant gaps for a read operation.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like pagination or authentication, which are important for a read operation with no annotations, 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, with the 'page' parameter documented as 'Page number (default: 1)'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as page size or ordering, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
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 ('Get') and resource ('recently generated songs from your Suno account'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'suno_get_credits' or 'suno_check_status' which also retrieve information, so it lacks sibling 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios like checking song status with 'suno_check_status' or retrieving credits with 'suno_get_credits', leaving the agent without context for selection among read operations.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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/unforced/suno-mcp'

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