export_videoRender the final MP4 (Remotion). Fetches the current timeline and queues the render. Async — poll get_workflow_status for the video_export job, then call get_video_url.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes | Project ID, as returned by create_project or list_projects |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (not read-only) and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool is async ('Async — poll...') and queues a render job, providing behavioral context beyond annotations. It does not detail side effects or failure scenarios.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise: two sentences immediately conveying the core action and async workflow. Every sentence adds value with zero wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the single parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's role and the async flow. It could mention the need for a complete timeline, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the schema description for project_id is clear: 'Project ID, as returned by create_project or list_projects.' The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Render the final MP4 (Remotion)' and explains the process: 'Fetches the current timeline and queues the render.' It distinguishes from siblings like get_video_url and get_workflow_status by describing the async workflow and next steps.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit post-call steps: 'poll get_workflow_status for the video_export job, then call get_video_url.' This guides the agent on usage. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool or prerequisites like a valid timeline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tool families overlap in purpose, such as await_jobs/get_workflow_status/get_pipeline_progress, update_segment_content/update_segment_prompts, director_note/project_director_note, and scan_script/rescan_voice_blocks. The descriptions do a good job distinguishing them, but an agent must read carefully to avoid misselection, and there are more than a couple of confusable pairs.
The set overwhelmingly follows a verb_noun snake_case convention with clear prefixes like get_, list_, set_, update_, create_, and delete_. Minor exceptions such as director_note, project_director_note, browse_audio_library, and whoami keep it from being perfectly consistent.
At 72 tools, this is far beyond the 50+ extreme range and creates a heavy navigation burden for an agent. Even though the pipeline is complex, this many tools is not well-scoped for an MCP surface.
The surface covers the full script-to-export pipeline: styles, assets, voices, storyboards, segments, scenes, and rendering all have substantial lifecycle support. Some gaps exist—no delete_channel, delete_segment, delete_voice_block, or delete_provider_key—but most missing operations can be worked around through existing tools.