Revid

Get project status

get_project_status

Read-only

Follow a video started by render_video, with its project id (pid). While the video is still being made, the call waits up to waitSeconds (default 40), then returns status "ready" with the videoUrl, "error" with the reason, or still "building" with progress (0 to 1), stageLabel and estimatedSecondsLeft: then call it again. Every answer carries projectUrl, the Revid page where the video appears: give it to the user if you stop checking. Renders usually take 2 to 10 minutes. Requires an active Revid plan.

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": {
      "pid": "<pid>"
    },
    "name": "get_project_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`pid`	Yes	Project id returned by `render_video`.
`waitSeconds`	No	How long to wait for the video while it is still being made, 0 to 40. Default 40; 0 checks once.

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?

Beyond the readOnly/non-destructive annotations, it discloses the blocking wait behavior (up to waitSeconds, default 40), the three possible status outcomes, the progress/stageLabel/estimatedSecondsLeft fields, typical render duration of 2-10 minutes, and the plan requirement. This is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot convey.

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 polling loop and outcome states are front-loaded and every sentence carries information, though the middle sentence is a long run-on that packs status values, progress fields, and the re-call instruction together. Slightly denser than ideal but no wasted content.

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-parameter polling tool with an output schema, the description covers the full lifecycle: initiation, wait semantics, all outcome branches, retry behavior, and the fallback of surfacing projectUrl. Nothing an agent needs to invoke or interpret it correctly is missing.

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 real meaning: pid comes from render_video and waitSeconds governs the polling wait with 0 meaning a single check. It largely restates the schema's default-40/0-checks-once wording, which caps it below 5.

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 specific verb and resource ('Follow a video started by `render_video`') and ties the tool to its producer, which cleanly separates it from the many other status siblings (get_episode_status, get_export_status, get_media_status, get_publish_status). An agent can identify the exact object being polled without opening the schema.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use and when-to-repeat guidance: call it after render_video, and if the result is still 'building', call it again. It also tells the agent what to do when it stops checking (hand projectUrl to the user) and states the prerequisite of an active Revid plan.

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?