Skip to main content
Glama

Create video

create_video

Start a video: a title, the brief (who it's for, what it must show, the one thing to feel), the shape (16:9, 9:16, 1:1, 4:5) and the length in seconds. The platform drafts the storyboard from the brief (a little model time, billed like an agent's); then shape it with set_video_shots or ask the Creative Director (ask_agent creative, with production). draft: false makes an empty video to fill yourself.

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": {
      "title": "<title>",
      "brief": "<brief>"
    },
    "name": "create_video"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
briefYes
draftNo
styleNo
titleYes
engineNoonly when the person asks for a method: remotion is a code film, ffmpeg the joiner; otherwise the Creative Director picks
companyNothe company id (list_companies); not needed when you have one company, asked for otherwise
secondsNo
aspect_ratioNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed7 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / $schema
      Added value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • changedInput schema / properties / company / description
      Previous value: -"the company id (list_companies); optional when you have one"New value: +"the company id (list_companies); not needed when you have one company, asked for otherwise"
    • addedInput schema / properties / engine
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "only when the person asks for a method: remotion is a code film, ffmpeg the joiner; otherwise the Creative Director picks",
      +  "enum": [
      +    "remotion",
      +    "ffmpeg"
      +  ],
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / style / additionalProperties
      Added value: +{}
    • addedInput schema / properties / style / propertyNames
      Added value: +{
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
      +  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
      +  "additionalProperties": {},
      +  "properties": {},
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world, so the description correctly focuses on cost and process: the storyboard draft consumes model time and is billed like an agent's. That billing/timing disclosure is genuinely additive. It stops short of saying whether the call returns immediately or must be followed by wait_for_video/get_video, which is the one behavioural detail a caller most needs.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the required inputs before the workflow and the draft escape hatch. Every clause carries information — the brief's parenthetical and the billing note both earn their space.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description covers required inputs, cost, and next steps well. Remaining gaps are the undocumented `style` parameter and the absence of a follow-up hint (render_video / wait_for_video) for an async draft.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With only 25% schema description coverage across 8 parameters, the description carries the load and mostly succeeds: it defines the brief's content (audience, must-show, emotional beat), maps "shape" to aspect_ratio values, and pins seconds as length. The `style` object and the draft-true default are left unexplained, so coverage is good but not complete.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ("Start a video") and enumerates exactly what the caller must supply: title, brief, shape, length. It also distinguishes itself from neighbouring tools by naming set_video_shots and ask_agent as the downstream shaping path, so an agent can place it in the video workflow without opening other schemas.

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?

Gives a clear use context (kick off a video from a brief, then refine with set_video_shots or the Creative Director) and an explicit alternate mode ("`draft: false` makes an empty video to fill yourself"). It lacks an explicit when-not to use it (e.g. versus import_video_plan or design_video_cards), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources