media-gen-mcp

get_video

Check status and download videos generated by create_video using videoId or taskId.

Instructions

Poll and optionally download a video task created by create_video (by videoId or taskId). Companion to create_video — use it after an async video returns a handle, or to check/retrieve any video task.

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": "get_video"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`taskId`	No	legacy fallback endpoint
`videoId`	No
`download`	No
`provider`	No		agnes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.7Jul 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions polling and downloading, implying a read operation with optional file retrieval, but does not disclose potential behaviors like rate limits, authorization needs, or what happens when downloading large files.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is two sentences with no superfluous content. It front-loads the action and follows with usage context, which is efficient. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate parameter notes).

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?

Without an output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns (e.g., video URL, binary data). It adequately covers the polling/companion use case but omits output details. Given 4 parameters and no schema, more completeness is needed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 25% (only 'taskId' has a description). The description adds context for 'videoId' and 'taskId' by stating they are identifiers, but it does not explain the 'download' or 'provider' parameters, leaving critical gaps.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's action (poll and optionally download) and resource (video task created by create_video). It specifies identifiers (videoId or taskId) and positions itself as a companion to create_video, distinguishing it from sibling tools like generate_image or list_models.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit usage context: 'use it after an async video returns a handle, or to check/retrieve any video task.' This guides when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives beyond the companion relationship.

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

Deploy Server