Valmera — AI Video Editor

Render preview

render_preview

Renders evidence for the current immutable edit version. A changed-section proof is distinct from a complete preview. Complete and approval modes produce a stored full-program review video; pending work returns job information rather than a completed render.

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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>"
    },
    "name": "render_preview"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`report`	No
`quality`	No
`complete`	No
`project_id`	Yes	Explicit project identifier for this request. The connection's navigation pointer does not select the target.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 6, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / project_id / description

Previous value: -"Required immutable scope for this call. Copy the id from list_projects/open_project/project_state; the active-project pointer is never used to guess."New value: +"Explicit project identifier for this request. The connection's navigation pointer does not select the target."

Changed1 schema field changedOct 11, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / report
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```
First observedSep 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavior: complete and approval modes produce a stored full-program review video, and pending work returns job information rather than a completed render. This adds useful async/job semantics and output expectations, though it does not mention permissions or overwrite behavior.

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?

The description is three compact sentences and front-loads the core action. The second sentence is somewhat abstract, but every sentence contributes relevant framing about preview scope and output behavior.

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?

For a four-parameter rendering tool with no output schema and low schema description coverage, the description supplies useful mode and job-return context. It remains incomplete because it does not adequately explain parameter mapping or help the agent choose between this tool and nearby rendering/export alternatives.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 25%, with project_id being the sole documented parameter. The description indirectly gestures at complete and approval modes but does not explicitly define what the report boolean does, how complete maps to the changed-section proof versus full preview, or what distinguishes draft from approval quality.

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 states a specific verb and object: 'Renders evidence for the current immutable edit version' and clarifies that a changed-section proof is distinct from a complete preview. It is clear enough to distinguish preview rendering from sibling operations like render_variants or export_final, though 'evidence' is somewhat abstract.

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 description implies usage through mode behavior: complete and approval modes produce a stored full-program review video, and pending work returns job information. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as render_variants or export_final, nor does it explain how to choose among report, complete, and quality settings.

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

All Valmera — AI Video Editor 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.