Skip to main content
Glama

Ludo AI Game Assets

by ai.ludo

createVideo

Generate a short video clip from a source image and a motion text prompt (image-to-video). The job result is the video URL and its actual duration in seconds - there is no separate polling step. Optionally pass final_image to interpolate between a start and end frame. The chosen model and duration must be compatible (incompatible combinations return HTTP 400); see the model and duration fields for the values each model accepts. Credits are charged only on success, based on the produced duration and never more than the duration you requested. Pass an optional request_id to tag the result so you can locate it later via GET /assets/videos/results. Related tools: use createImage for static images, animateSprite for sprite-sheet animation, and GET /assets/videos/results to list videos you generated earlier. Requires an API key (user scope). Returns 202 with a job id immediately; poll getApiJob (pass wait: 30) until status is succeeded, then read its result field, which is exactly the response documented for this operation. Each account may have up to 50 generations queued or running at once; beyond that submissions return 429 (PENDING_JOBS_LIMIT) - wait for jobs to finish.

Credits: cost varies by model and duration (credits/sec): Blitz 1/s, Eagle 1.3/s, Eagle with Audio 1.8/s, Forge Pixel 2/s (min 4); see this endpoint's full pricing table in the API docs.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
requestBodyYesPayload for generating a video from a source image and motion prompt

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and it delivers thoroughly: it discloses the no-separate-polling result shape, credit charging only on success with a never-more-than-requested cap, HTTP 400 on model/duration incompatibility, HTTP 429 on concurrency exceed, request_id dedupe behavior, and the 202 + poll pattern.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is front-loaded with its purpose, but contains extensive verbatim duplication: the API-key/202/poll/429 block, the related-tools sentence, and the credits-per-model pricing table each appear twice nearly word-for-word. This redundancy significantly inflates length without adding information.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (async job, polling, credits, model/duration compatibility, deduplication) and the absence of an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: job result shape (URL + duration), polling instructions, error cases, pricing, and request_id semantics. Nothing essential is missing.

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 baseline is 3. Every parameter already has a detailed description including model qualities, per-model durations, and credits/sec. The tool description adds only marginal semantics beyond the schema (e.g., the credit cap 'never more than you requested'), so it stays at the baseline.

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 states a highly specific verb and resource: 'Generate a short video clip from a source image and a motion text prompt (image-to-video).' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by directing users to createImage for static images and animateSprite for sprite-sheet animation, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly tells when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'use createImage for static images, animateSprite for sprite-sheet animation, and GET /assets/videos/results to list videos you generated earlier.' It also covers the async job pattern, polling via getApiJob with wait=30, the 50-generation concurrency cap, and the purpose of request_id for deduplication.

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

All Ludo AI Game Assets toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools pair a clear action and asset type (create3DModel, editVideo, removeBackground), and overlapping pairs such as animateSprite vs transferMotion vs animateSpriteKeyframes are carefully differentiated by input mode. The main friction is listApiJobs vs listGenerations, which both return generation history from slightly different scopes.

Naming Consistency4/5

The set is overwhelmingly consistent camelCase verb+noun (create*, edit*, list*, animate*, cancel*), with only minor deviations like generatePose/generateWithStyle alongside createImage and the slightly awkward validateApiKeyEndpoint. There is no chaotic mixing of conventions.

Tool Count2/5

At 31 tools this exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many', even though the multimodal game-asset scope explains much of the breadth. Agents face a large selection surface with many generation variants across 3D, sprites, images, audio, and video.

Completeness4/5

Core workflows are covered: image-to-3D plus rigging and animation, sprite pose/rotation/animation/editing, image create/edit/style/background-removal, video create/edit/upscale, and audio SFX/ambiance/music/voice. Minor gaps remain, such as no image upscaler and no individual asset retrieval or deletion.

Resources