VideoGen MCP

Official

by video-gen

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Hybrid

Get workflow run

get_workflow_run

Read-only

Retrieve the current status and result of a VideoGen workflow run so you can check progress, confirm completion, or handle output in your video pipeline.

Instructions

Fetch the current status and result of a single workflow run.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`workflowRunId`	Yes	Workflow run id (vg_work_...).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`error`	No	Error details when status is failed; otherwise null.
`status`	No	Job status: pending, running, succeeded, failed, or cancelled.
`exportId`	No	Export id when autoExport succeeded (vg_expo_...).
`projectId`	Yes	Project created for this exact workflow attempt (vg_proj_...). A retry creates a different project.
`projectUrl`	Yes	Deep link to the project created for this exact workflow attempt. Keep it paired with workflowRunId; a retry returns a new URL.
`downloadUrl`	No	Signed MP4 download URL when autoExport succeeded. Give this to the user.
`attemptIndex`	No	Current or latest attempt index.
`exportFileId`	No	File id of the rendered MP4 when autoExport succeeded.
`workflowType`	No	Workflow type (present after polling).
`workflowRunId`	Yes	Workflow run id (vg_work_...). Keep it paired with this response's projectId and projectUrl; a retry returns a new tuple.
`remixActionIds`	No	Remix action ids from the start response (empty when none requested).
`progressPercentage`	No	Completion progress 0-100 (present after polling).
`downloadUrlExpiresAt`	No	Unix expiry for downloadUrl.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.2.1Oct 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the response contains the run's 'current status and result', but says nothing about freshness, waiting/polling behavior, or error cases for a run that does not exist.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb, scope, and returned content all land in the first clause.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so the description need not enumerate return fields, and a single-parameter read tool needs little more than this. It is adequately complete, though a note on which sibling to use when the run id is unknown would close the last gap.

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?

The single parameter has 100% schema description coverage including the id format hint ('vg_work_...'), so the schema carries the parameter documentation. The description adds no further meaning about the id or its alternatives, which is the expected baseline when coverage is high.

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 and resource ('Fetch the current status and result of a single workflow run'), making the operation unambiguous. The word 'single' implicitly separates it from the sibling list_workflow_runs, but the split is left for the agent to infer rather than named outright.

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?

Usage is implied by 'a single workflow run' (versus a list), which points the agent toward this tool when it already has an id. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over list_workflow_runs or any prerequisite/scoping guidance.

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

Deploy Server