Clypmint

Start a blank video

start_video

DestructiveIdempotent

A video with no footage: a title card, or a graphics base, at 24, 25, 30 or 60 fps. Cost: Free.

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": "start_video"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`fps`	No	24, 25, 30 or 60; default 30.
`shape`	No	Default 9:16.
`texts`	No	The words.
`title`	No	Name.
`seconds`	No	1-600; default 5.
`video_id`	No	Card to replace.
`background`	No	Hex colour.
`base_version`	No	Version read.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`code`	No
`cost`	No
`error`	No
`state`	No
`status`	No
`dry_run`	No
`message`	No
`plan_id`	No
`style_id`	No
`video_id`	No
`available`	No
`import_id`	No
`output_id`	No
`studio_url`	No
`version_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedNov 10, 2026
- removedInput schema / properties / background / pattern
```
Removed value: -"^#[0-9a-fA-F]{6}$"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / texts / items / properties / color / pattern
```
Removed value: -"^#[0-9a-fA-F]{6}$"
```

Changed1 schema field changedNov 10, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / fps

Added value: +{
+  "description": "24, 25, 30 or 60; default 30.",
+  "enum": [
+    24,
+    25,
+    30,
+    60
+  ],
+  "type": "number"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedNov 9, 2026
- changedInput schema / properties / seconds / description
```
Previous value: -"Default 5."New value: +"1-600; default 5."
```
AddedNov 6, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false. The description adds genuine context beyond them with 'Cost: Free', which is not derivable from structured fields. It does not explain what the destructive replacement (via video_id) actually discards, which would have been the most valuable addition given the destructive hint.

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?

One compact sentence plus a cost note, with the defining trait ('no footage') front-loaded. Nothing is wasted, though the fragment style means the action verb is carried entirely by the tool name rather than the prose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present and full schema coverage, the description need not cover returns or parameters. For an 8-parameter mutation tool that is idempotent and destructive, though, it should say more about the overwrite behavior when video_id is supplied and how this differs from create_video.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains every parameter including defaults and ranges. The description only restates the fps enum values, adding no meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 identifies the resource precisely: a video with no footage, i.e. a title card or graphics base. That distinguishes it reasonably well from footage-based siblings, but it never names an alternative such as create_video or edit_video, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The use cases named ('title card, or a graphics base') imply when to reach for this tool, giving an agent a workable trigger. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing statement against create_video despite it being the obvious alternative.

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

All Clypmint 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?