Skip to main content
Glama
elibarnett

kie-mcp

by elibarnett
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

veo_extend

Extend an existing Veo 3.1 video with additional content. Requires taskId from a previous Veo generation.

Instructions

Extend an existing Veo 3.1 video with additional content. Requires taskId from a previous Veo generation.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modelNofast
seedsNoRandom seed (10000-99999) for variation control
promptYesDescription of what happens in the extension
task_idYesTask ID from original Veo 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

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not disclose that this is a paid, likely async generation that may need polling via check_task, or any permission/credit implications. The schema's estimate_only hint alludes to expensive runs, but the description itself adds essentially nothing beyond the operation name.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with the operation and its prerequisite front-loaded, no filler. It is concise and readable, though arguably too terse for an 8-parameter generation tool.

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 an 8-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation generation tool, the description is thin: it omits cost behavior, async task lifecycle, and return expectations. The rich schema fields partly compensate, but the description leaves the agent under-informed on how the call actually behaves.

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 75%, and the schema already documents the key parameters including the cost controls (max_credits, estimate_only). The description only echoes task_id's origin, which the schema also states, so it adds little beyond structured data. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (extend) and resource (an existing Veo 3.1 video), which distinguishes it from generic generation siblings like generate_video. The 'Veo 3.1' qualifier helps separate it from runway_extend, though that differentiation is left implicit rather than stated.

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 prerequisite 'Requires taskId from a previous Veo generation' is stated, which implies when the tool applies. However there is no explicit comparison to alternatives such as runway_extend or veo_upscale_1080p/4k, so the agent must infer when to pick this over those siblings.

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