Skip to main content
Glama
thenavidm

Shotstack MCP Server

by thenavidm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Render Template

render_template
Destructive

Render an asset from a template ID using merge fields to replace placeholder variables. Requires explicit confirmation as provider charges may apply.

Instructions

Render an asset from a template id and optional merge fields. Merge fields can be used to replace placeholder variables within the Edit.

Base URL: https://api.shotstack.io/edit/{version} Explicit confirmation is required for this exact action; provider charges, hosting, sharing or deletion may apply. Never automatically resubmit unknown outcomes.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoThe id of the template to render in UUID format.
mergeNoAn array of key/value pairs that provides an easy way to create templates with placeholders. The placeholders can be used to find and replace keys with values. For example you can search for the placeholder `{{NAME}}` and replace it with the value `Jane`.
accountNoNamed private Shotstack account; selects private credentials and stage/v1 environment.
confirmNoMust be true for this exact requested render, generation, mutation, upload URL or deletion.
payloadNoComplete JSON request body instead of body flags. Preserves current endpoint fields and values.
payload_fileNoRegular local JSON body file, at most 5 MB. Cannot be mixed with body flags or payload.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description goes beyond that by warning about provider charges, hosting, sharing or deletion, requiring explicit confirmation, and warning against automatic resubmission of unknown outcomes. That is genuinely useful operational context for an irreversible render.

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?

The opening sentence is front-loaded and clear, but the body is cluttered with broken markdown — a link to '[Edit](#tocs_edit)' that does not resolve, a Base URL anchor with href='#', and duplicated boilerplate about confirmation. Wasteful formatting dilutes the useful content.

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?

For a destructive, non-idempotent, chargeable action with six parameters and no output schema, the description does cover the confirmation and cost risk. It says nothing about what is returned (render id, async polling, job status) and gives no way to disambiguate from `render`, leaving real gaps.

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%, so the schema already documents `id`, `merge`, `account`, `confirm`, `payload` and `payload_file`. The description only restates the merge-field idea and adds nothing about the confirmation flag or the payload/payload_file exclusivity, so it is at the baseline for full coverage.

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 and resource ('Render an asset from a template id') plus the optional merge-field mechanism, which is enough for an agent to know what it produces. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling tool `render`, so the agent cannot tell from the description alone which of the two to pick.

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 when-to-use vs `render` or any other sibling is given. The only guidance is procedural ('Explicit confirmation is required... never automatically resubmit unknown outcomes'), which is a safety rule rather than a selection rule.

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