If you already use Codex, a small video is a useful way to try the Impractical connection. You can give it a brief, inspect the draft, ask for a specific change and check the exported file before taking on a more involved product demonstration.
For this walkthrough, we made a simple typography animation using our own logo and wording. We created and revised the draft through an existing authenticated connection. The installation instructions were checked against the current source and CLI help; we didn't test a fresh installation or sign-in.
Connect Codex to Impractical
Have Node.js 22 or newer and Codex available in your terminal, then run the setup command below. If it asks you to approve a device code, complete that step in your browser and return to the terminal. Setup can reuse a working credential, so an existing connection may not need another sign-in.
The --agent option configures detected supported coding agents, not just Codex. Let the installer update its Impractical entry rather than replacing your entire MCP configuration. Restart Codex when setup finishes so it can load the connection.
Setup also checks for a browser used to inspect frames. If it reports a browser installation problem, follow that message before attempting frame inspection. You don't need to replace your regular browser profile or copy credentials into the video brief.
npx --yes @impractical-ai/motion setup --agent
Check the connection before asking for a draft
Use codex mcp list to check that the Impractical server is registered, then run the whoami command below to check the authenticated Impractical connection. Seeing a server entry and successfully reaching your workspace are separate checks.
Inside Codex, ask it to use Impractical account_status before creating the project. Confirm that it is working in the intended workspace. We checked the registration, the whoami command and the account request on the existing connection used here. Browser sign-in to Studio is separate from this MCP connection.
codex mcp list npx --yes --package @impractical-ai/motion impractical whoami
Start with a brief small enough to inspect
Our exercise used the sentence 'Turn a product brief into a video you can refine.' It finishes with the Impractical name, our actual logo and impractical.ai. We kept the content simple so a change to timing or text size would be easy to identify.
The brief below restates the scope of that exercise. For a product demonstration, add the current product captures and the behavior you need the viewer to understand. Give the agent the actual source material rather than asking it to guess what the interface looks like.
Create a simple Impractical-branded typography exercise. Show: 'Turn a product brief' followed by 'into a video you can refine.' Close with the supplied Impractical logo, the name Impractical and impractical.ai. Use the actual supplied logo. Keep the words readable and give each phrase its own space. Don't add a simulated product interface or customer results. Create the draft, author the scenes and show the result for review before export.
Have Codex author the scene files after creating the project
The create_video tool creates a project and an empty draft with source files. It doesn't return a completed film from the brief alone. Codex needs to read the available engine guidance and write the scene content and direction into that draft.
In this exercise, the text and closing layout were authored in App.tsx, while direction.ts held the scene timing. That separation gave us concrete places to inspect when a revision changed the URL size and the reading interval.
If the project exists but you still have an empty scaffold, ask the agent to continue authoring the scenes. Treat a successful project-creation response as the starting point, then review the authored draft rather than assuming creation means the video is finished.
Make a revision you can verify in the source and the output
We used a specific request to check the revision process: hold the headline two seconds longer and reduce the closing URL size. Between the recorded baseline and the revised draft, the extra-hold value changed from zero to two seconds, and the URL's font size changed from 54 to 44 pixels.
That gave us two things to inspect: whether the source contained the requested changes and whether the resulting composition still worked. The source change shows what was edited; the rendered frames show whether the change had the intended visible effect.
The longer cut was subsequently judged too slow for this simple exercise, so another revision tightened the sequence. A requested edit can be implemented correctly and still need another creative decision. Giving a headline more time isn't automatically an improvement when the whole scene now lingers.
Hold the headline two seconds longer and reduce the closing URL size. Keep the wording and the actual Impractical logo unchanged. Show the revised headline hold and closing scene so we can check the result.
Wait for the export job, then check the file
Requesting an export starts a render job. Have Codex follow the job until it completes, then inspect the actual MP4 rather than treating the job response as a finished download.
The recorded export after the two-second hold revision completed as a silent 1920 by 1080 H.264 file at 60 frames per second, lasting about 17 seconds. Those are properties of that intermediate file, not recommended settings or a target length for every video.
After reviewing that version, we shortened the opening and closing holds and exported again. The final exercise below is about 11 seconds long, at the same 1920 by 1080 resolution and 60 frames per second. We inspected rendered frames across the sequence and checked the exported file, including its final frame.
Review the exercise in the context it actually demonstrates
The silent sample shows 'Turn a product brief,' then 'into a video you can refine.' It closes with the Impractical logo, the name Impractical and the address impractical.ai. There is no spoken explanation or additional product behavior hidden in the soundtrack.
Once the small exercise works, use the same process on a specific feature: supply its source material, inspect the first draft, ask for a concrete revision and review the exported file. The sample below is a typography exercise, so it shows the production workflow rather than the behavior of an application.