Revid

Upload a file

create_upload_url

Get a public cdn.revid.ai URL for a local image, video or audio file, to use wherever Revid takes a media URL (render_video media and references, generate_media references and frames, create_character, clone_voice). This server cannot read your files: the call returns a one-time uploadUrl; PUT the file bytes to it with the returned headers within expiresIn seconds, e.g. curl -X PUT -H "Content-Type: <contentType>" --data-binary @<path> "<uploadUrl>". The file is then served at url. With a shell and the Revid CLI, revid upload <file> does both steps. For a file attached in a chat (ChatGPT), or without a way to send the bytes, use upload_files instead: url stays dead until the bytes are PUT, so never pass it on without having sent them. Uses no credits.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "contentType": "<contentType>"
    },
    "name": "create_upload_url"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`fileName`	No	Original file name; its extension is kept in the URL.
`contentType`	Yes	MIME type of the file: image/, video/ or audio/*, e.g. image/jpeg, video/mp4, audio/mpeg. The PUT must send exactly this Content-Type.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes
`data`	No
`error`	No
`method`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`endpoint`	Yes
`retryAfterSeconds`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare the generic profile (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive); the description adds the crucial non-obvious behavior: the server cannot read local files, the call returns a one-time `uploadUrl`, bytes must be PUT with the returned headers within `expiresIn` seconds, and the resulting `url` is dead until then. It also notes no credits are used, which annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with the outcome and destination URL, then the mechanism, then the alternative — a sensible information order for a process-dependent tool. It is dense and includes a full curl example plus a parenthetical list of consumers, so it runs long, but nearly every clause carries operational weight.

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?

For a two-step tool with an output schema present, the description covers exactly what the schema can't: the sequencing requirement, expiry window, header formatting, failure mode (dead URL), and the sibling fallback. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly or to choose upload_files instead.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantics the schema cannot easily convey: `contentType` is not just descriptive metadata but must exactly match the Content-Type header of the PUT, and `fileName`'s extension is preserved into the URL. That link between the parameter and the follow-up HTTP call is genuine added meaning.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a public cdn.revid.ai URL for a local image, video or audio file') and immediately scopes what the URL is for, listing the concrete consumers (render_video media/references, generate_media references/frames, create_character, clone_voice). It is clearly separable from the sibling upload_files, which it names.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use this when you can send bytes yourself; use upload_files when the file is attached in chat or there is no way to PUT. It also gives the CLI shortcut (`revid upload <file>`) and a hard warning against passing `url` on before the bytes are sent.

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

All Revid tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?