Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
VideoGen MCP

VideoGen MCP

Official
by video-gen
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

List files

list_files
Read-only

Retrieve a paginated list of files accessible with your VideoGen API key using limit and cursor parameters.

Instructions

List files visible to the current API key.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_files"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum number of items to return.
cursorNoPagination cursor from a previous response's `nextCursor`.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filesYesFiles visible to the API key.
hasMoreYesWhether another page is available.
nextCursorYesCursor for the next page, or null.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.2.1

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — results are scoped to the current API key's visibility/permissions — but says nothing about pagination behavior or result ordering.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Every word carries information (action, resource, scope).

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?

With an output schema, full annotation coverage, and complete parameter documentation, the only thing left for the description is scope, which it provides. Adequate, though a nod to pagination or sibling routing would round it out.

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 limit and cursor are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, making the baseline 3 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+resource ("List files") and adds scope ("visible to the current API key"). It is clear on its own, but does not distinguish itself from the file-related siblings get_file, upload_file, or create_file_upload.

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 guidance and no mention of alternatives, even though get_file exists as a natural sibling for fetching a single file. The API-key scoping hints at breadth but is not framed as a selection criterion.

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