AIGigLab MCP Server

replicate_ltx_fast

Create a high-quality video from a single image using a text prompt to describe motion or scene. Supports adjustable duration, resolution, and audio generation.

Instructions

Generate a fast, high-quality video from a single image using LTX-2-Fast.

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": {
      "imagePath": "<imagePath>",
      "prompt": "<prompt>"
    },
    "name": "replicate_ltx_fast"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`prompt`	Yes	Text prompt describing the motion/scene
`duration`	No	Duration in seconds
`imagePath`	Yes	Absolute path to the local image file
`resolution`	No	Output video resolution	1080p
`generate_audio`	No	Whether to generate audio for the video

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.3.0Jul 15, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only claims 'fast, high-quality' but lacks details on side effects, limitations (e.g., image format restrictions), or output format. The agent is left uninformed about behavioral traits.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and differentiates from siblings.

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?

Despite schema covering parameters, the tool lacks an output schema and annotations. The description does not mention return values (e.g., video URL or file path) or behavioral context, leaving gaps for a video generation tool.

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%, meeting the baseline. The description adds no additional meaning to parameters beyond what the schema already provides. No parameter details are elaborated.

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 uses a specific verb 'Generate', identifies the resource 'a fast, high-quality video from a single image', and names the model 'LTX-2-Fast'. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like replicate_wan_t2v (text-to-video) and remotion_generate_video (more complex).

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 (e.g., when to choose LTX-2-Fast over other video generation tools). No prerequisites or conditions are mentioned.

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