Skip to main content
Glama

create_lipsync

Synchronize audio with video to create lipsync videos by providing video and audio URLs. This tool generates videos where mouth movements match the audio track.

Instructions

Create a lipsync video by synchronizing audio with video

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
video_urlYesURL to the source video
audio_urlYesURL to the audio file to sync
callback_urlNoURL to receive completion callback

Implementation Reference

  • The createLipsync handler method that makes a POST request to /lipsync endpoint with the provided arguments and returns the response data
    private async createLipsync(args: any) {
      const response = await this.axiosInstance.post('/lipsync', args);
      return {
        content: [{
          type: 'text',
          text: JSON.stringify(response.data, null, 2),
        }],
      };
    }
  • Tool definition with name 'create_lipsync', description, and inputSchema specifying video_url, audio_url (required), and callback_url (optional) parameters
    // Lipsync
    {
      name: 'create_lipsync',
      description: 'Create a lipsync video by synchronizing audio with video',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          video_url: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'URL to the source video',
          },
          audio_url: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'URL to the audio file to sync',
          },
          callback_url: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'URL to receive completion callback',
          },
        },
        required: ['video_url', 'audio_url'],
      },
    },
  • src/index.ts:740-741 (registration)
    Switch case routing 'create_lipsync' tool calls to the createLipsync handler method
    case 'create_lipsync':
      return await this.createLipsync(request.params.arguments);
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 of behavioral disclosure. While 'create' implies a write operation, the description lacks details on permissions, rate limits, whether the operation is asynchronous (implied by 'callback_url' but not stated), what happens on failure, or the nature of the output. This is inadequate for a creation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence ('Create a lipsync video by synchronizing audio with video') directly contributes to understanding the tool's function, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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?

Given the complexity of a creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and behavioral gaps, the description is incomplete. It fails to address key aspects like asynchronous behavior (implied by callback_url but not explained), error handling, or what the tool returns. This leaves significant uncertainty for an agent trying to use the tool effectively.

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%, with all parameters documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain format requirements for URLs or how the synchronization works). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate with additional semantic context.

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's purpose: 'Create a lipsync video by synchronizing audio with video'. It specifies the verb ('create'), resource ('lipsync video'), and core function ('synchronizing audio with video'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'generate_video' or 'create_conversation', which could also involve media creation, leaving room for ambiguity in sibling tool selection.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or comparisons with sibling tools like 'generate_video' or 'create_conversation'. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and basic description without explicit context.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/rakeshdavid/Tavus-MCP'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server