Skip to main content
Glama
elibarnett

kie-mcp

by elibarnett
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

runway_extend

Extend an existing Runway Aleph video with continuation content.

Instructions

Extend an existing Runway Aleph video with continuation content.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
promptYesDescription of what happens in the extension
qualityNo720p
task_idYesTask ID from original Runway generation
filenameNo
max_creditsNoRefuse to submit if the estimated cost exceeds this many credits (overrides KIE_MAX_CREDITS_PER_CALL). Estimates come from published rates; kie bills the actual amount.
download_dirNoAbsolute directory to save the file(s) into (created if missing). Defaults to the server's kie/assets/raw/. Must be absolute — the MCP server's working directory is not the caller's.
estimate_onlyNoReturn the estimated credit cost WITHOUT submitting anything. Use before expensive runs (video, 4K, 1080p upgrades, layer splits).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv5.8.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / estimate_only
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Return the estimated credit cost WITHOUT submitting anything. Use before expensive runs (video, 4K, 1080p upgrades, layer splits).",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / max_credits
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Refuse to submit if the estimated cost exceeds this many credits (overrides KIE_MAX_CREDITS_PER_CALL). Estimates come from published rates; kie bills the actual amount.",
+  "type": "number"
+}
  2. First observedv4.7.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
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 says nothing about the fact that this is a paid, credit-consuming video operation (implied by max_credits/estimate_only params), whether it is asynchronous, or what happens to the original video — all critical for an expensive generation call.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity leaves behavioral gaps that are captured elsewhere rather than here.

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?

For a 7-parameter, no-annotation, cost-bearing video generation tool with no output schema, one sentence is inadequate. It omits cost/credit behavior, prerequisites, and how it relates to the veo_extend sibling, leaving the agent under-informed before an expensive call.

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 71%, so most parameters are documented in the schema itself; the description adds no additional parameter meaning. The estimate_only, max_credits, and download_dir descriptions live entirely in the schema, which is adequate for this coverage level.

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 specific verb ('Extend'), the exact resource ('an existing Runway Aleph video'), and the output nature ('continuation content'). It clearly describes what the tool does, but does not differentiate itself from the sibling 'veo_extend', which presumably performs an analogous extension for a different model family.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, despite 'veo_extend' being a close sibling for the same extension use case. It also omits the prerequisite that the task_id must come from an original Runway generation, forcing the agent to infer this from the schema.

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