Cutible MCP Server

render_farm

Render videos via a distributed rendering system by specifying output path and worker count. Parallelize rendering tasks across multiple workers to reduce video production time.

Instructions

Render using the distributed render farm.

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": {
      "output": "<output>"
    },
    "name": "render_farm"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`output`	Yes
`n_workers`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 14, 2026

TDQS

C2.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only paraphrases the tool name and adds 'distributed', which is already implied by 'render_farm'. It does not mention whether rendering is asynchronous, whether results are returned directly, what happens on failure, or what output means in this context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

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

The one-sentence description is concise, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately sized. It provides almost no information beyond the tool name and omits critical context about parameters and behavior.

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?

Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter documentation, the description leaves an agent with insufficient information to call the tool correctly. It does not explain what 'output' should contain, what 'n_workers' does, what a render job entails, or what the tool returns.

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 0%, and the description does not mention either parameter. The schema reveals only that 'output' is a required string and 'n_workers' is an optional integer, but neither the meaning of 'output' as a path/format/ID nor the role of 'n_workers' is explained. The description completely fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 action ('Render') and the specific resource ('the distributed render farm'), which distinguishes it at a basic level from sibling tools like render_proxy and render_farm_dry_run. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with the plain 'render' sibling, so some ambiguity remains.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'render', 'render_proxy', or 'render_farm_dry_run'. The description gives no context about choice criteria, prerequisites, or conditions that would make this tool preferable.

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