mcp

Create Processing Job

create_job

Create a video/audio processing job. Use list_tools first to find the right tool and options. Returns a job ID — use get_job to check status and get the result URL. Needs a paid plan (Lite or higher). Non-AI results are included in the plan; AI results cost AI credits, charged when the result is ready.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tool`	Yes	Tool slug from list_tools (e.g. 'compress-video', 'convert-video')
`width`	No	Input width in pixels (for credit estimation)
`height`	No	Input height in pixels (for credit estimation)
`inputs`	Yes	Public URLs to input files
`options`	No	Tool-specific options (see list_tools for available options)
`webhook`	No	HTTPS URL to receive a POST when the job completes or fails
`durationMs`	No	Input duration in milliseconds (for credit estimation)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Job ID — pass to get_job
`tool`	Yes	Tool slug
`status`	Yes	Initial job status (queued)
`message`	Yes
`creditsReserved`	Yes	Always 0: nothing is held when a job is created
`estimatedCredits`	Yes	What the AI result should cost, charged when it's ready (0 for non-AI tools, which are included in the plan)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 14, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / creditsReserved / description

Previous value: -"Credits reserved for this job"New value: +"Always 0: nothing is held when a job is created"

addedOutput schema / properties / estimatedCredits

Added value: +{
+  "description": "What the AI result should cost, charged when it's ready (0 for non-AI tools, which are included in the plan)",
+  "type": "number"
+}

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "id",
-  "status",
-  "tool",
-  "creditsReserved",
-  "message"
-]New value: +[
+  "id",
+  "status",
+  "tool",
+  "creditsReserved",
+  "estimatedCredits",
+  "message"
+]

First observedAug 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real context: the asynchronous job lifecycle, the plan requirement, and the credit/billing model (AI results cost credits charged on completion, non-AI results included). It does not cover failure modes, retry behavior, or rate limits, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and workflow, then cost. Every sentence carries information, though the billing sentence is dense enough that it could be split or trimmed; nothing is wasted or padded.

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?

For an async job-creation tool with a nested options object and an output schema, the description covers the workflow, plan gating, and cost model, and it need not restate return values since an output schema exists. The webhook parameter's delivery semantics and error handling are left to the schema, a minor gap rather than a blocker.

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 all seven parameters are already documented, and the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond pointing at list_tools for the 'tool' and 'options' values — which the schema itself already says. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries parameter semantics entirely.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Create a video/audio processing job') and immediately states the output ('Returns a job ID'). It differentiates from siblings by naming list_tools as the prerequisite step and get_job as the follow-up, so an agent can place this tool in the workflow without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It gives explicit sequencing: call list_tools first to resolve the tool slug and options, then use get_job to poll status and retrieve the result URL. It also states the precondition that a paid plan (Lite or higher) is required, which is exactly the kind of gating condition an agent needs before invoking.

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

All mcp 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?