Skip to main content
Glama

AetherWave Studio

by com.aetherwavestudio.mcp

Upscale video (Atlas Video Upscaler)

aetherwave_upscale_video

Upscales a source video to 1080p or 2K using Atlas. Pass a public videoUrl and the target resolution. Cost is per-second (7 cr/s @ 1080p, 9 cr/s @ 2K). Atlas-side limits: clips up to 53s at 1080p, 23s at 2K, source must be <=30fps. Returns the upscaled video URL (R2-hosted).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
videoUrlYesPublic URL of the source video (MP4).
targetResolutionNoTarget output resolution. Defaults to '1080p'. '2k' is more expensive and limited to ~23s clips.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the basic annotations, it discloses per-second costs, Atlas-side limits (clip length, frame rate), and that the result is an R2-hosted URL. This adds meaningful behavioral context about what the tool does and its constraints.

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 focused sentences cover function, usage, cost/limits, and return value. No redundancy or irrelevant details. The structure is front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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?

The description covers input, constraints, cost, and output URL, which is sufficient given no output schema. It could mention failure behavior but that's not essential. The limits and cost give good operational context.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameter descriptions, so the description doesn't need to add much. It restates videoUrl and targetResolution without adding new semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool upscales videos to 1080p or 2K using Atlas, with a specific verb (upscales), resource (video), and target resolutions. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like aetherwave_upscale_image and aetherwave_generate_video.

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 provides clear context for when to use: upscaling a video with a public URL, with specified resolutions, limits, and costs. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives but the context is sufficient for most AI agents.

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

All AetherWave Studio 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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct media operation (image, video, audio, listing, mastering, etc.) with clear boundaries. Even similar tools like generate_image and edit_image are differentiated by their primary intent (creation vs. modification) and model selection guidance.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow the 'aetherwave_verb_noun' pattern consistently, using snake_case. Verbs and nouns are descriptive and predictable (e.g., generate_image, list_video_models, remove_background_video).

Tool Count4/5

16 tools is slightly above the ideal range (3-15) but remains well-scoped for a multimedia generation platform covering image, video, audio, and user management. Each tool serves a distinct purpose, and no obvious bloat exists.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers core creation, editing, listing, and enhancement workflows for images, videos, and audio. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no delete tool, no get-single-creation tool), but the essential lifecycle is well-covered.

Resources