What can you do with this server?

This server provides MCP-compatible assistants with access to Google's Veo 3.1 video generation API through RunAPI, enabling the following: * Generate videos from text (text_to_video): Create videos from text prompts using veo-3.1 or veo-3.1-fast models, with control over aspect ratio (16:9, 9:16, auto), duration (4, 6, or 8 seconds), and input mode (text, first_and_last_frames, reference). * Extend existing videos (extend_video): Continue or extend a previously generated video by referencing a source task ID. * Upscale videos (upscale_video): Enhance video resolution to 1080p or 4K. * Poll for task results (get_task): Fetch the current status and result payload (including output URLs) for any task by its ID. * Check pricing (check_pricing): Look up current pricing for any Veo 3.1 model and endpoint — no API key required. * Flexible task execution: All creation tools support optional polling (wait: true/false), configurable timeout (timeout_ms), and poll interval (poll_interval_ms), allowing synchronous or asynchronous task submission.

How do I use @runapi.ai/veo-3-1-mcp?

1. Click on "Install Server". 2. Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state. 3. In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@@runapi.ai/veo-3-1-mcp Generate a 10-second video of a sunset over the ocean" That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed. Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.

@runapi.ai/veo-3-1-mcp

by runapi-ai

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Score Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Remote

Why This Package?

@runapi.ai/veo-3-1-mcp is a focused Model Context Protocol server for the Veo 3.1 model line on RunAPI. It gives MCP-compatible assistants direct access to 3 endpoints and 3 model variants without loading the full RunAPI catalog.

Use this per-model server when an agent should stay scoped to Veo 3.1. Use @runapi.ai/mcp when one assistant should discover every RunAPI model line.

Related MCP server: veo-mcp-server

Install

Add it to Claude Code:

claude mcp add veo-3-1 -s user -- npx -y @runapi.ai/veo-3-1-mcp

Use project scope when the server should be shared with a repository:

claude mcp add veo-3-1 -s project -- npx -y @runapi.ai/veo-3-1-mcp

Codex, Cursor, Windsurf, VS Code, Roo Code, and other MCP hosts can use the same stdio command:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "veo-3-1": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "@runapi.ai/veo-3-1-mcp"]
    }
  }
}

check_pricing works before sign-in. For task creation and status polling, ask your assistant to call the login tool. It opens a browser login and saves credentials to ~/.config/runapi/config.json, the same file used by runapi login. Headless and CI hosts can still set RUNAPI_API_KEY before starting the MCP host.

Ready-made examples are in examples/ for Claude, Cursor, Windsurf, VS Code, and Roo Code.

Tools

Tool	Auth	Purpose
`extend_video`	Yes	Create a Veo 3.1 extend video task and optionally wait for a terminal status. Returns the task id, status, and output URLs.
`text_to_video`	Yes	Create a Veo 3.1 text to video task and optionally wait for a terminal status. Returns the task id, status, and output URLs.
`upscale_video`	Yes	Create a Veo 3.1 upscale video task and optionally wait for a terminal status. Returns the task id, status, and output URLs.
`get_task`	Yes	Fetch the current status and latest payload for an existing task.
`check_pricing`	No	Look up current pricing for a Veo 3.1 model and endpoint.

Models

Veo 3.1 covers 3 model variants across 3 endpoints. Each tool accepts the models listed for it:

Tool	Models
`extend_video`	no model parameter
`text_to_video`	`veo-3.1`, `veo-3.1-fast`, `veo-3.1-lite`
`upscale_video`	no model parameter

Model availability can change between releases. Use check_pricing or the Veo 3.1 model page for the current catalog view.

Agent Prompts

Ask your assistant in natural language; it can inspect pricing, create the task, and return the task id plus output URLs.

Create a task

Run a Veo 3.1 extend video task with RunAPI.

The assistant can call check_pricing, then extend_video, and return the task id, status, and output URLs.

Submit without waiting

Create the task but don't wait for it to finish.

The assistant calls the create tool with wait: false and returns the task id. Check on it later with get_task.

Check pricing before creating

Check current Veo 3.1 pricing, then create the task if it matches my request.

The assistant calls check_pricing and can link to the Veo 3.1 model page for the canonical catalog entry.

Configuration

The server resolves auth in this order:

RUNAPI_API_KEY environment variable, useful for headless and CI hosts
~/.config/runapi/config.json, created by the MCP login tool or runapi login
No key, which still allows check_pricing

The config file is normally managed by login. A pre-provisioned headless config can use:

{
  "apiKey": "your_runapi_key"
}

Do not commit real API keys.

Links

Resource	URL
Veo 3.1 model page	https://runapi.ai/models/veo-3.1
npm package	@runapi.ai/veo-3-1-mcp
GitHub repository	runapi-ai/veo-3-1-mcp
RunAPI MCP overview	runapi.ai/mcp
RunAPI docs	runapi.ai/docs

License

Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0.

Available Tools

6 tools

check_pricingA

Look up RunAPI pricing for the veo-3-1 model line.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`model`	No	Model slug. Defaults to the line's primary model.
`action`	No	Endpoint name. Defaults to the endpoint that offers the model.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the purpose but discloses no behavioral traits (e.g., idempotency, authentication needs). For a simple lookup this is minimally acceptable.

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?

Single concise sentence with no fluff, directly stating the tool's function.

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?

Given it's a simple price lookup with two optional parameters elegantly described in schema, the description is nearly complete. Lacks mention of output format, but not critical for this 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 coverage is 100% with descriptive enums, so the description adds no extra meaning beyond mentioning the model line. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description explicitly states the action ('look up', 'pricing') and the resource ('RunAPI pricing for the veo-3-1 model line'), clearly distinguishing from sibling tools (video processing, login, task fetching).

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 for pricing queries but provides no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. It is adequate but minimal.

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

extend_videoC

Create a Veo 3.1 task on RunAPI (extend video). Returns a task id, status, and output URLs.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`wait`	No	Poll until the task reaches a terminal status.
`seeds`	No
`prompt`	No
`watermark`	No
`timeout_ms`	No
`callback_url`	No
`source_task_id`	Yes
`poll_interval_ms`	No

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided. The description mentions creating a task and returns, but does not disclose asynchronous behavior, auth requirements, or side effects. The wait parameter defaults to true, indicating polling, but this is not mentioned.

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 and key details. Could be expanded without becoming verbose.

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

Completeness1/5

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

With 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly inadequate. It does not explain how to use the tool or what the returned data represents in context.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 13%, yet the description adds no information about any parameters (e.g., source_task_id, prompt, seeds). It completely fails to compensate for the sparse schema.

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 tool creates a Veo 3.1 task to extend video and lists return values (task id, status, output URLs). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like text_to_video or upscale_video.

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?

Only implied usage (to extend a video). No explicit guidance on when to use, when not, or alternatives like upscale_video or text_to_video.

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

get_taskA

Fetch the current status and latest result payload for a veo-3-1 task.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`action`	Yes	Asynchronous endpoint the task was created on.
`task_id`	Yes	Task id returned when the task was created.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey all behavioral traits. It indicates a read operation ('fetch') but does not state safety (e.g., idempotent), rate limits, error behavior, or what happens if the task ID is invalid.

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 a single sentence of 11 words, front-loading the key action and resource. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given no output schema, the description mentions 'current status and latest result payload' but lacks details on output structure. For a simple fetch with two parameters, this is adequate but not rich.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters have descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the verb 'Fetch', the resource 'task', and specifies it's for 'veo-3-1 task'. It distinguishes from sibling tools which are task creation/action endpoints, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 use after creating a task but provides no explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites like authentication.

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

loginA

Authenticate RunAPI by opening a browser PKCE login flow and saving the API key to ~/.config/runapi/config.json.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`force`	No	Re-run browser login when the current credential comes from the local config file.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the interactive browser flow and the file write side effect (config.json). However, it does not mention that it may overwrite existing credentials or that it could block waiting for user input, though these are implied.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Authenticate RunAPI') and provides necessary details without extraneous information.

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?

For a simple login tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and side effect. It lacks an explicit statement that this is a prerequisite for other tools, but that is implied.

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% (the only parameter 'force' has a description). The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Authenticate'), target resource ('RunAPI'), method ('browser PKCE login flow'), and side effect (saving to config.json). It is distinct from sibling tools, none of which relate to authentication.

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 (to authenticate RunAPI) but does not explicitly say when to run it (e.g., before other RunAPI tools) or when to use the 'force' parameter. Since there are no alternative auth tools among siblings, 'vs alternatives' is not applicable.

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

text_to_videoC

Create a Veo 3.1 task on RunAPI (text to video). Returns a task id, status, and output URLs.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`wait`	No	Poll until the task reaches a terminal status.
`model`	No	RunAPI model slug for this model line.
`seeds`	No
`prompt`	No
`watermark`	No
`input_mode`	No
`timeout_ms`	No
`aspect_ratio`	No
`callback_url`	No
`duration_seconds`	No
`poll_interval_ms`	No
`enable_translation`	No
`last_frame_image_url`	No
`reference_image_urls`	No
`first_frame_image_url`	No

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral traits. Only states it creates a task and returns fields; no mention of mutation, auth, rate limits, or asynchronous behavior.

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?

Extremely concise with two sentences; front-loaded with key action and return type. No extraneous content.

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

Completeness1/5

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

For a tool with 15 parameters and no output schema, the description is woefully incomplete. Lacks parameter explanations, error handling, and usage context.

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

Parameters1/5

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

With only 13% schema description coverage, the description fails to explain parameters like seeds, watermark, input_mode, etc., which are critical for correct invocation.

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?

Clearly states the tool creates a Veo 3.1 task for text-to-video and lists return fields. Differentiates from siblings like upscale_video and extend_video.

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. Does not mention prerequisites or context for selecting this over sibling tools.

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

upscale_videoC

Create a Veo 3.1 task on RunAPI (upscale video). Returns a task id, status, and output URLs.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`wait`	No	Poll until the task reaches a terminal status.
`index`	No
`timeout_ms`	No
`callback_url`	No
`source_task_id`	No
`poll_interval_ms`	No
`output_resolution`	No

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Without annotations, description only states it returns task id, status, and output URLs, but does not disclose synchronous/asynchronous behavior, auth requirements, or potential 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

Single sentence efficiently states purpose and return values, but could include more structure without becoming verbose.

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

Completeness1/5

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

With 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly insufficient. It fails to explain parameter roles, output format, or usage patterns.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema has 7 parameters with only 14% description coverage (only wait has a schema description). The tool description adds no parameter explanations, leaving the agent to guess meanings.

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 the action (Create a Veo 3.1 task on RunAPI) and the specific purpose (upscale video), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like text_to_video and extend_video.

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., text_to_video for generation), nor any prerequisites or when-not-to-use.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

5 tool updatesv0.1.9Jul 24, 2026
- Changedcheck_pricing1 field changed
  - changedInput schema / properties / model / enum
```
Previous value: -[
-  "veo-3.1",
-  "veo-3.1-fast"
-]New value: +[
+  "veo-3.1",
+  "veo-3.1-fast",
+  "veo-3.1-lite"
+]
```
- Addedextend_video
- Addedget_task
- Addedtext_to_video
- Addedupscale_video
4 tool updatesv0.1.7Jul 22, 2026
- Removedextend_video
- Removedget_task
- Removedtext_to_video
- Removedupscale_video
1 tool updatev0.1.6Jul 11, 2026
- Addedlogin
5 tool updatesv0.1.0Jun 24, 2026
- First observedcheck_pricing
- First observedextend_video
- First observedget_task
- First observedtext_to_video
- First observedupscale_video

Install Server

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Scored 2026-07-24 13:58 across 6 tools

Disambiguation4/5

The creation tools (upscale_video, extend_video, text_to_video) have similar descriptions starting with 'Create a Veo 3.1 task on RunAPI', but their names clearly indicate different operations. Login, pricing, and status tools are distinct. Minor ambiguity from identical phrasing.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow verb_noun snake_case, but 'login' is a bare verb and 'text_to_video' is not verb_noun. This mixed pattern reduces consistency, though still readable.

Tool Count5/5

6 tools cover the core tasks: three creation types, status retrieval, pricing, and authentication. This is well-scoped for a video generation service.

Completeness4/5

The set covers create, monitor, and pricing. Missing operations like cancel or list tasks are minor gaps; core workflow is complete.

Maintenance

ActivitySlowing

ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Need Help?

Related Servers

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

mcp-veoOAuth
io.github.AceDataCloud
MCP server for Google Veo AI video generation
Multimedia Processing Image & Video Processing Entertainment & Media
23
StoryStudioOAuth
io.github.HelloElo-Fr
AI image, video, voice and music generation over MCP, routed to Veo 3.1, Seedance 2.0 and more.
AI & Machine Learning Image & Video Processing Audio Processing
1
mcp-klingOAuth
io.github.AceDataCloud
MCP server for Kling AI video generation
Image & Video Processing AI & Machine Learning
21
mcp-wanOAuth
io.github.AceDataCloud
MCP server for Wan AI video generation
AI & Machine Learning Image & Video Processing
21

Related MCP Servers

MCP Video Generation with Veo2
Image & Video Processing Multimedia Processing
mario-andreschak
A
license
B
quality
D
maintenance
MCP server that exposes Google's Veo2 video generation capabilities, allowing clients to generate videos from text prompts or images.
Updated a year ago (2025-04-28 19:06 UTC)
7
34
MIT
veo-mcp-server
AI & Machine Learning Image & Video Processing
u2n4
A
license
Not graded
quality
C
maintenance
MCP server for 4K video generation using Google VEO 3.1 — text-to-video, image-to-video, video extension, and frame interpolation.
Updated 3 months ago (2026-06-22 16:44 UTC)
1
MIT
Google Veo 3.1 MCP Server
AI & Machine Learning Image & Video Processing
ex-takashima
A
license
A
quality
C
maintenance
MCP server for Google Veo 3.1 video generation. Supports text/video/image-based generation, extension, and interpolation with cost estimation and batch processing.
Updated 2 months ago (2026-07-11 03:31 UTC)
4
37
MIT
@runapi.ai/gemini-omni-mcp
AI & Machine Learning Multimedia Processing
runapi-ai
A
license
A
quality
A
maintenance
MCP server for the Gemini Omni model line, enabling task creation (audio, character, text-to-video) and pricing checks through RunAPI.
Updated a month ago (2026-07-31 09:32 UTC)
6
70
Apache 2.0