Motion Text
Server Details
Turn words, images, and audio into an animated video with MP4 export.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.6/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: creating drafts, retrieving server specs, and listing visual presets. No functional overlap exists.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (create_story_draft, get_spec, list_visual_presets), making them predictable and easy to understand.
Three tools is well-scoped for a focused server handling story draft creation. Each tool serves a necessary and distinct role without excess or deficiency.
The server covers the core workflow of creating drafts with supporting specs and presets, but lacks tools for listing existing drafts or managing them (e.g., update, delete, save). This is a minor gap.
Available Tools
3 toolscreate_story_draftCreate story draftBInspect
Create a complete, editable lyric-video or story-video draft and get back an edit link for the user. Prefer script mode (one beat per line) unless exact timings are known. Drafts expire after 30 days unless the user saves them. Most ads use one or two effects for the whole piece. fade, rise and pop read as professional; scatter, slam and glitch read as novelty and get tiring past a line or two. Vary the type SIZE and the vertical POSITION between lines rather than the effect — that is what makes a piece look composed rather than captioned.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mood | No | ||
| pace | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| format | No | 16:9 | |
| scenes | No | ||
| script | No | One story beat per line; the Director paces scenes and captions to match mood and pace. Provide script OR entries. | |
| entries | No | Explicitly timed text, when you already know the timings. | |
| duration | No | ||
| presetId | No | Visual preset; see list_visual_presets. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that 'Drafts expire after 30 days unless saved', adding useful behavioral context. However, no annotations exist, and the description does not mention authentication, rate limits, or side effects beyond creation. It partially carries the transparency burden.
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 verbose, especially with a long list of effect details that duplicate and extend the schema effect description. It front-loads the core action but buries key guidance in excessive details, reducing conciseness.
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?
The description covers the return value (edit link) and expiry, and references list_visual_presets for presetId. However, it lacks details on error handling, asynchronous behavior, or prerequisites, leaving gaps in completeness for a creation tool with no output schema.
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 description coverage is only 33%, but the description adds detailed guidance for effects (e.g., fade, rise, pop) and distinguishes between script and entries. However, it neglects parameters like mood, pace, title, format, and duration, which lack semantic explanation.
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 'Create a complete, editable lyric-video or story-video draft and get back an edit link', specifying verb, resource, and action. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on draft creation, while siblings are retrieval tools.
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 advises 'prefer script mode unless exact timings are known', implying a heuristic but does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or how it compares to sibling tools. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_specGet Motion Text specAInspect
Machine-readable capabilities, limits, draft schema, and integration endpoints.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description fails to explicitly state tool is read-only or has no side effects. Name implies read but not confirmed.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with key outputs, no redundancy.
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 zero parameters and no output schema, description adequately covers what the tool returns: capabilities, limits, schema, endpoints. No gaps.
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?
No parameters; baseline 4 per rules. Description adds no param details but schema coverage is 100% vacuously.
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?
Description clearly states tool returns machine-readable capabilities, limits, draft schema, and endpoints, matching verb 'get' and resource 'spec'. Distinguishes from siblings 'create_story_draft' and 'list_visual_presets'.
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?
Description implies use for obtaining specification but provides no explicit guidance on when to invoke (e.g., before other calls) or alternatives. Sibling tools are different, so no direct competition but lack of context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_visual_presetsList visual presetsAInspect
Complete looks (treatment, typography, colors, motion) that can style a draft.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description only defines what presets contain, not behavioral traits like read-only, authorization needs, or side effects.
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?
Single sentence, 14 words, directly conveys core information with no fluff.
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?
Lacks output schema and annotations; describes what presets contain but not scope (all presets?), or if any state changes occur. Adequate but minimal.
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?
No parameters; schema coverage is 100% (trivially). Baseline 4 applies as description adds no parameter info but none is needed.
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?
Clearly states the tool lists visual presets (treatment, typography, colors, motion) and their purpose of styling a draft. Distinct from siblings create_story_draft and get_spec.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; no context about prerequisites or common use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!