Seedance MCP

seedance_create_and_wait

Generate a video from a text prompt and poll until completion, returning the video URL and status in a single call.

Instructions

Create a Seedance video task and wait for completion in one call.

Args: prompt: Text description of the video to generate. Required. model: Model ID override. ratio: Aspect ratio, e.g. "16:9". resolution: Resolution, e.g. "720p". duration: Video duration in seconds. camera_fixed: Whether to fix camera movement. image_url: Optional reference image URL. callback_url: Optional callback URL. extra_args: Additional request parameters. interval_seconds: Polling interval (default: SEEDANCE_POLL_INTERVAL). timeout_seconds: Max wait time (default: SEEDANCE_WAIT_TIMEOUT).

Returns: JSON with ok, task_id, status, video_url, error, and raw responses.

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": {
      "prompt": "<prompt>"
    },
    "name": "seedance_create_and_wait"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`model`	No
`ratio`	No
`prompt`	Yes
`duration`	No
`image_url`	No
`extra_args`	No
`resolution`	No
`callback_url`	No
`camera_fixed`	No
`timeout_seconds`	No
`interval_seconds`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the polling behavior (interval_seconds, timeout_seconds) and return structure. It explains that it waits for completion, which is key behavioral info. However, it doesn’t mention side effects like resource consumption or rate limits.

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?

The description is moderately lengthy due to parameter listing, but front-loads the purpose. The Args section is clear and structured. It could be slightly more concise, but it is still efficient.

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?

The description covers purpose, all parameters, and return values. Given the high parameter count and existence of output schema, it is fairly complete. However, it lacks prerequisites, error handling details, or differentiation from siblings.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema), so the description carries the full burden. It provides concise explanations for all 11 parameters, e.g., 'prompt: Text description of the video to generate. Required.' This adds significant value beyond the parameter names.

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 clearly states it creates a Seedance video task and waits for completion in one call. This distinguishes it from siblings like seedance_create_video (create only) and seedance_wait_task (wait only).

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 description implies usage as a synchronous alternative to separate create and wait steps, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the siblings. No when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is provided.

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

Deploy Server