Montik

Export video

export_video

Render the timeline to a file (mp4, or mp3/wav/m4a audio only). Saved in Montik exports for 30 days unless directory is given. A project runs one export at a time. wait=true waits up to 10 min. A finished job may have a warning (the picture came out black, say): pass it on to the user.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "export_video"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`end`	No
`wait`	No
`start`	No
`format`	No
`height`	No	output height, e.g. 720 / 1080 / 2160 (width follows aspect)
`quality`	No	default fast; high is sharper and slower, draft is for checks
`filename`	No
`loudness`	No	target LUFS for the mix (default -14 for social; null = untouched)
`directory`	No	absolute output folder
`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

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false), it discloses real operational behavior: 30-day retention in Montik exports, the one-export-per-project concurrency limit, the 10-minute wait ceiling, and the instruction to relay job warnings to the user. Those are exactly the traits an agent could not learn from the schema or 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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct operational information, with the core action and retention caveat front-loaded. No restatement of the tool name and no filler.

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?

For an 11-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers retention, concurrency, blocking behavior, and the warning path well. The notable gap is that it never says what a successful call returns (a job id for export_status?) or how to poll, which matters given that wait can time out.

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 only 55%, so the description must compensate, and it does explain format behavior (mp3/wav/m4a are audio only), wait semantics, and directory persistence. However, start/end, filename, and the approvalId flow are only gestured at ('unless directory is given', no explicit explanation of approvalId despite it being in the schema); the enum params format and quality are better documented in the schema itself.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Render the timeline to a file', and enumerates the supported output formats including the audio-only distinction. It is clearly distinguishable from adjacent tools like render_frame or export_status by scope, but it never names a sibling, so an agent must infer that export_status/cancel_export are the follow-up tools.

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?

It gives concrete decision rules: use directory when you want a custom location, use wait=true for a synchronous wait capped at 10 minutes, and note that only one export per project runs at a time. It stops short of explicitly routing to export_status for polling or cancel_export for abandonment, which is the main missing piece.

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?