VideoGen

Get project

get_project

Read-onlyIdempotent

Return a project's title, readiness status, editor projectUrl, timestamps, aspectRatio, and assistantId when available. Use the projectId for subsequent remix and export calls.

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": {
      "projectId": "<projectId>"
    },
    "name": "get_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`projectId`	Yes	Editable project to inspect. Use projectId from a workflow result or list_projects.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`title`	Yes	Project title.
`status`	Yes	High-level project status.
`createdAt`	Yes	Unix timestamp when the project was created.
`projectId`	Yes	Project id (vg_proj_...).
`updatedAt`	Yes	Unix timestamp when the project was last updated.
`projectUrl`	Yes	Deep link to open the project in the VideoGen editor.
`aspectRatio`	Yes
`assistantId`	Yes	Assistant conversation id, or null for older projects.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedNov 4, 2026
- removedOutput schema / properties / assistantId / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / assistantId / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```

Changed1 schema field changedOct 16, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / projectId / description

Previous value: -"Project id."New value: +"Editable project to inspect. Use projectId from a workflow result or list_projects."

First observedOct 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The rich annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false) already establish this as a safe, repeatable read, so the description's burden is lower. It adds meaningful nuance with 'when available,' warning that fields such as aspectRatio or assistantId may be absent, and implies readiness status gates downstream remix. It does not discuss error behavior for invalid or missing projects.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with the resource and returned fields front-loaded, followed by the chaining instruction. The field enumeration is slightly redundant given an output schema exists, but it is brief and does double duty in signaling what matters downstream.

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?

With an output schema covering return values and annotations covering safety, the description only needs to establish intent and usage context, which it does. The 'when available' caveat on optional fields is a useful completeness touch; the only gap is the lack of explicit sibling disambiguation.

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% and the single projectId parameter is already documented in the schema as coming from a workflow result or list_projects. The description mentions the parameter only in the context of downstream reuse, adding no format or validation detail beyond the schema, so the 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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Return a project's...' — and names the fields exposed, so the agent knows this is a single-project read. It doesn't explicitly contrast with list_projects or get_project_export, leaving sibling differentiation implicit.

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?

'Use the projectId for subsequent remix and export calls' gives downstream chaining guidance, which implies this is a lookup step in a pipeline (e.g., before remix_project or export_project). It does not say when to call this instead of list_projects or get_project_export, so the when-to-use guidance remains implied.

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

All VideoGen 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.