Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Wan30 MCP

Wan30 MCP

by NotUsingGithub
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

estimate_generation

Read-only

Calculate credit costs for Wan 3.0 text-to-video, image-to-video, or reference-to-video requests before generation. Provide model, resolution, aspect ratio, and duration to preview required credits.

Instructions

Quote credits before generation.

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": {
      "input": "<input>"
    },
    "name": "estimate_generation"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
inputYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations already establish that this is a safe, non-destructive operation. The description adds that it is a quote/estimate rather than an actual generation, but it does not clarify whether the quote is guaranteed, whether it consumes credits, or how the quote relates to final generation cost.

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?

The description is extremely short and front-loaded with zero unnecessary wording. Every word contributes to identifying the action and timing.

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?

Given the complex anyOf input schema, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description is too sparse. An agent would not know from the description alone that the input must mirror a full video-generation request, which model-specific fields are required, or what the quote response contains.

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 0%, and the single input parameter is a complex nested anyOf schema with three model-specific configurations. The description supplies no information about the input object, required fields, model variants, or how the quote input should differ from a generation input.

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 clear action (quote credits) and timing context (before generation), making it apparent this is a cost-estimation tool. It does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from the sibling generate_video, so it falls just short of the top score.

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 phrase 'before generation' implies this should be used prior to a generation call, but it does not explicitly say to call it instead of generate_video, nor does it provide exclusions or alternatives. Usage is implied rather than clearly instructed.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools