AIGigLab MCP Server

remotion_generate_video

Turn script text into a dynamic video presentation with optional voice narration and logo overlay. AI generates code-based videos with customizable aspect ratios.

Instructions

Generate a dynamic, code-based video presentation using Remotion and AI.

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": {
      "scriptText": "<scriptText>"
    },
    "name": "remotion_generate_video"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`voiceId`	No	ElevenLabs Voice ID (e.g., 'XrExE9yKIg1WjnnlVkGX'). Pass 'none' for a silent video.	none
`logoPath`	No	Absolute local path to a logo image (SVG, PNG, JPG) to overlay on the video
`scriptText`	Yes	The core script, topic, or creative brief for the video
`aspectRatio`	No	Video aspect ratio	16:9

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.3.0Jul 15, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'dynamic, code-based' and 'AI' but omits details on output format, duration, cost, synchronicity, or side effects. The agent learns little about behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence is concise but lacks structure or details. It earns its place but could be more informative without added length.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It omits context about the generated video's nature, resolution, expected output, or integration with other tools (e.g., remotion_get_status).

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information, maintaining baseline adequacy.

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 clearly states the action (generate) and resource (video presentation) with specific technologies (Remotion, AI). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like brandos_generate_asset or replicate_wan_t2v, which could also generate video content.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 prerequisites, exclusions, or context for choosing this over similar generation tools.

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