Montik

Export takes

export_takes

One video per take of a slot (the other slots stay as chosen), each saved in Montik exports like export_video and named after its take. A project runs one export at a time, so they render one after the other and the later ones show as queued. Use this for hook tests when you only need the files; create_take_variants is for when each version needs a project of its own. Returns the jobs: follow them with export_status.

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": {
      "slotId": "<slotId>"
    },
    "name": "export_takes"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`height`	No	output height, e.g. 720 / 1080 (width follows aspect)
`slotId`	Yes
`quality`	No	default fast; high is sharper and slower, draft is for checks
`takeIds`	No	default: every take
`loudness`	No	target LUFS for the mix (default -14 for social; null = untouched)
`projectId`	No	Project to act on (default: the open one)
`approvalId`	No	Only after needs_approval: the id it gave, once the user said yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, closed-world), while the description supplies the behavior that actually matters: exports are serialized one project at a time so later jobs queue, files are named after their take, and the call returns job handles. It also names the follow-up tool (export_status) needed to track completion, which is not derivable from annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each doing distinct work: what it produces, how jobs are scheduled, and which sibling to use instead. Scope and the alternative are front-loaded with no restatement of the name or title.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by saying it returns jobs and pointing to export_status. The one gap is the needs_approval path, which appears only in the schema field for approvalId and is not surfaced in the description for a 7-parameter job-creating tool.

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 coverage is high at 86%, so the schema already documents quality, height, loudness, projectId, approvalId and takeIds defaults. The description only clarifies slotId behavior indirectly via "the other slots stay as chosen" and adds nothing about takeIds or the approval flow, 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 states a specific verb and resource ("one video per take of a slot") and immediately fixes the scope ("the other slots stay as chosen"), then names the export destination. It is clearly distinguishable from adjacent siblings like export_video and create_take_variants without opening a 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 an explicit use case ("hook tests when you only need the files") and explicitly routes the competing case elsewhere ("create_take_variants is for when each version needs a project of its own"). The agent has a decision rule, not just a description.

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

All Montik 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?