Skip to main content
Glama
AceDataCloud

ProducerMCP

by AceDataCloud
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Hybrid

producer_replace_section

Specify a start and end time to replace that portion of a song with newly generated content, leaving the rest untouched. Use it to fix weak sections, swap verses, or rewrite lyrics mid-song.

Instructions

Replace a specific time range in a song with new generated content.

Re-generates a portion of a song between the specified start and end times,
keeping the rest of the song unchanged. Great for fixing sections you don't
like.

Use this when:
- A specific section of a song needs improvement
- You want to change lyrics in the middle of a song
- You want to replace a verse or chorus with something different

Returns:
    Task ID and the updated audio information.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
asyncNoWhether to process the request asynchronously.
lyricNoNew lyrics for the replaced section. Use section markers like [Verse], [Chorus].
modelNoModel version to use.FUZZ-2.0
promptNoPrompt for the replaced section.
audio_idYesID of the audio to replace a section in.
callback_urlNoWebhook callback URL for asynchronous notifications.
replace_section_endYesEnd time in seconds of the section to replace.
replace_section_startYesStart time in seconds of the section to replace.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.1.18
    • addedInput schema / properties / prompt
      Added value: +{
+  "default": "",
+  "description": "Prompt for the replaced section.",
+  "title": "Prompt",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / style
      Removed value: -{
-  "default": "",
-  "description": "Music style for the replaced section.",
-  "title": "Style",
-  "type": "string"
-}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.16
    • addedInput schema / properties / async
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Whether to process the request asynchronously.",
+  "title": "Async"
+}
  3. Addedv0.1.13
  4. Removedv0.1.12
  5. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the core effect (re-generates a portion between start/end and leaves the rest unchanged) and says it returns a Task ID and updated audio info, which is useful. However, it remains silent on whether the original audio is permanently mutated or a new version is produced, and gives no detail on async or callback 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?

The description is well-structured with a front-loaded action, a use-case bullet list, and a returns line. It is concise overall, though the first sentence and the second sentence both restate the same time-range idea, which is a minor redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the output schema, the return-value mention is a bonus. The description covers the tool's purpose, usage triggers, and the key effect on the song. It does not explain async/callback semantics, but those are documented in the input schema by parameter descriptions.

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 8 parameters (audio_id, replace_section_start/end, prompt, model, async, callback_url). The description adds little beyond referring to the specified start and end times, so the baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Replace a specific time range in a song with new generated content,' and elaborates with 'keeping the rest of the song unchanged.' This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like extend, cover, or variation because the unique scope is a contiguous time window within an existing track.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

A dedicated 'Use this when' list gives concrete triggers (fixing sections, changing lyrics, replacing a verse/chorus). It does not mention exclusions or name sibling alternatives, but the context is clear enough to select the tool.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

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/AceDataCloud/ProducerMCP'

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