The TikTok Marketing MCP server automates TikTok marketing tasks, offering free tools for trend research and content creation, plus premium AI-powered tools via the DeepSeek API.
Free Tools (No API Key Required)
search_trending_videos: Search for trending TikTok videos by keyword or hashtag, returning video titles, views, and likes.
analyze_hashtag: Analyze a TikTok hashtag's performance, including view count, video count, and trend direction.
draft_video_script: Generate a template-based video script for a given topic and hook type (question, story, tutorial, or challenge).
Premium Tools (Requires DeepSeek API Key)
optimize_posting_time: Use AI to determine the best posting times for a specific target audience to maximize views.
generate_hashtag_strategy: Generate a tailored hashtag mix (broad, niche, and trending) for a given content niche, with optional competitor hashtag input for better targeting.
Provides tools for searching trending videos, analyzing hashtag performance, and drafting video scripts for viral marketing on TikTok.
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@TikTok Marketing MCP search trending videos for #AI"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
Free MCP server to automate TikTok viral marketing — search trending videos, analyze hashtags, draft video scripts. Premium features powered by DeepSeek AI.
# Install
npm install -g tiktok-marketing-mcp
# Add to your MCP client (e.g., Cline, Claude Desktop)
# No API key needed for FREE features!
node /path/to/tiktok-marketing-mcp/index.jsThat's it! Start using these FREE tools immediately:
search_trending_videos — Find trending TikTok videos by keyword
analyze_hashtag — Analyze a hashtag's performance (public data)
draft_video_script — Template-based video script drafts
Related MCP server: tiktok-mcp
Tool | What it does | No API key? |
| Search TikTok trending videos (via web) | ✅ Works immediately |
| Analyze hashtag views, video count, trend | ✅ Works immediately |
| Draft a video script (template) | ✅ Works immediately |
Set DEEPSEEK_API_KEY in your .env file to unlock:
Tool | What it does | Why it's worth paying for |
| AI-powered optimal posting times | 3x more views |
| AI-generated hashtag mix (broad + niche + trending) | 2x more discoverability |
| AI-generated script based on hook type | 10x better retention |
Get a DeepSeek API key: https://platform.deepseek.com (cheap, ~$0.14/1M tokens)
Add to your MCP client config:
{
"mcpServers": {
"tiktok-marketing": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["/path/to/tiktok-marketing-mcp/index.js"],
"env": {
"DEEPSEEK_API_KEY": "sk-xxx" // Optional, for premium features
}
}
}
}git clone https://github.com/1036007003-wq/tiktok-marketing-mcp.git
cd tiktok-marketing-mcp
npm install
node index.jsUse `search_trending_videos` with keyword "#AI"
→ Returns: TikTok search URL, manual research checklistUse `analyze_hashtag` with hashtag "#marketing"
→ Returns: Hashtag URL, manual research checklistUse `draft_video_script`
→ Returns: Template-based script (or AI script with DeepSeek)Use `optimize_posting_time` with target audience
→ Returns: AI-generated best posting times (by timezone)Use `generate_hashtag_strategy` with niche
→ Returns: AI-generated hashtag mix (5 broad + 10 niche + 5 trending)# If you can't access TikTok directly:
# 1. Set proxy
export HTTP_PROXY=http://127.0.0.1:7890
export HTTPS_PROXY=http://127.0.0.1:7890
# 2. Or use a China-friendly API proxy
# (We recommend setting up your own proxy, or use a VPN)Alternative | Problem | Our Solution |
Manual TikTok research | Takes hours, algorithm changes fast | Automated trend detection |
Buying TikTok ads | Expensive ($20+ / day) | Free basic features |
Hiring a content strategist | $2000+ / month | One-time setup |
Other TikTok tools | Require TikTok API (complicated) | No API needed for basic features |
Product | Link | Free Features |
🚀 Reddit Marketing | 3 tools | |
🐦 Twitter/X Marketing | 3 tools | |
💬 Discord AI Marketing | 3 tools | |
⭐ GitHub Stars Growth | 4 tools | |
💼 LinkedIn B2B Marketing | 3 tools |
Free: Search trending videos (via web)
Free: Analyze hashtag (public data)
Free: Draft video script (template)
Premium: AI-powered script generation (DeepSeek)
Premium: Optimal posting time prediction
Premium: Hashtag strategy generation
Paid: Auto-post scheduler
Paid: Video performance analytics dashboard
Paid: Viral score predictor
Tier | Price | What you get |
Free | $0 | 3 basic tools (no API key needed) |
Supporter | $5/mo | All premium features + priority support |
Team | $25/mo | All premium + custom AI prompts + script templates |
One-time | $99 | Lifetime access (no subscription) |
👉 Sponsor here: https://github.com/sponsors/1036007003-wq
Open an issue: https://github.com/1036007003-wq/tiktok-marketing-mcp/issues
Built by @1036007003-wq | Sponsor on GitHub ❤️
I build custom MCP Servers for any API or system. 5-day delivery, $1,500/project.
Contact: Open an issue or email 1036007003@qq.com
FREE: Analyze a TikTok hashtag (public data). Returns view count, video count, trend direction.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hashtag | Yes | Hashtag to analyze (e.g. "#AI", "#marketing", "#viral") |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool is free and returns three metrics, which is helpful. However, it lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or any side effects. This is adequate but not comprehensive for a tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and return values. It is front-loaded with 'FREE: Analyze...' and contains zero wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool does and returns. It could mention the scope (public data only, which it does) and potential limitations, but overall it is fairly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description of the required 'hashtag' parameter. The description adds little beyond the schema, only implying the parameter's role. With high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it analyzes a TikTok hashtag and lists the specific return data (view count, video count, trend direction). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_hashtag_strategy (strategy vs analysis) and search_trending_videos (search vs analysis).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description indicates it's free and uses public data, which implies a usage context, but it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool vs alternatives like generate_hashtag_strategy or search_trending_videos. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
FREE: Draft a TikTok video script. Template-based (no API key needed).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| topic | Yes | Video topic (e.g. "AI marketing tools", "productivity hacks") | |
| hook_type | No | Hook type: "question", "story", "tutorial", "challenge" |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only reveals that the tool is free, template-based, and requires no API key. It does not disclose whether it uses AI, the format of the output (full script or outline), or any constraints like length or language.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise at two sentences, with no wasted words. However, 'FREE' is front-loaded which may be slightly out of place for pure functional description, but it is not misleading.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no output schema and 2 parameters, the description lacks details about return value (script length, format), usage limitations, and how the template works. Sibling tools are present but no context on how this complements them.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides (topic and hook_type). Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Draft a TikTok video script' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools (hashtag analysis, posting time optimization, trend search) by focusing on script creation. The mention of 'Template-based (no API key needed)' further clarifies the tool's nature.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, scenarios, or when not to use it. Sibling tools exist but no differentiation is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
PREMIUM: Generate a hashtag strategy for your niche. Requires DEESEEK_API_KEY.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| niche | Yes | Your niche (e.g. "AI tools", "fitness", "cooking") | |
| competitor_hashtags | No | Comma-separated list of competitor hashtags (optional) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided. The description adds the behavioral trait that it is 'PREMIUM' and requires a specific API key, indicating cost or access restrictions. However, it does not disclose other behaviors such as rate limits or how the strategy is generated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence defines the purpose, and the second adds a critical prerequisite. No redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that the tool has 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat under-specified. It does not explain what the hashtag strategy output looks like, how to interpret results, or any edge cases. The 'PREMIUM' indicator is helpful but does not fully compensate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions). The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema. The mention of 'Requires DEESEEK_API_KEY' is about authentication, not parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Generate a hashtag strategy for your niche'. The verb 'Generate' and resource 'hashtag strategy' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling 'analyze_hashtag' which focuses on analyzing a single hashtag.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions 'Requires DEESEEK_API_KEY' as a prerequisite but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'analyze_hashtag' or 'search_trending_videos'. There is no mention of when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
PREMIUM: Get optimal posting times for your audience. Requires DEESEEK_API_KEY.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target_audience | Yes | Target audience (e.g. "Gen Z", "marketers", "entrepreneurs") |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It only states the API key requirement, but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or any side effects. The behavioral context is minimal, which is insufficient for safe agentic use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with only two sentences, no redundant information, and key details (premium status, key requirement) are front-loaded. Every sentence serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description should hint at the return format or structure of optimal times. It does not, leaving the agent uncertain about what response to expect. The completeness is insufficient for a tool without an output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already documents the parameter 'target_audience' with examples. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'optimal posting times for your audience'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like analyze_hashtag or draft_video_script by focusing specifically on timing optimization, though the 'PREMIUM' label adds context but also implies a restriction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions it is a premium feature requiring 'DEESEEK_API_KEY', which provides a prerequisite but does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. No guidance on scenarios where this tool is appropriate or not.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
FREE: Search for trending TikTok videos by keyword/hashtag. Returns video titles, views, likes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| keyword | Yes | Keyword or hashtag to search (e.g. "#AI", "marketing tips", "viral hacks") |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. States it returns video titles, views, likes, indicating a read-only operation. Notes 'FREE', suggesting no cost. Lacks details on auth, rate limits, or pagination, but for a simple search tool, disclosure is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with front-loaded purpose. The 'FREE:' prefix is minor and not essential, but the description is otherwise efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. Description specifies what it does and returns basic fields, but lacks details on result count, sorting, pagination, or limits. Sufficient for a basic search but could be more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 100% coverage with a clear description for the only parameter (keyword). The tool description adds no new parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Search for trending TikTok videos by keyword/hashtag', specifying the action and resource. Distinguishes from sibling tools (analyze_hashtag, draft_video_script, etc.) by focusing on video search rather than analysis or creation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use guidance. The description implies usage for finding trending videos by keyword, but does not contrast with alternatives or mention prerequisites. The context of sibling tools somewhat clarifies, but the description itself lacks direct instruction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Each tool targets a distinct marketing function: hashtag analysis, script drafting, strategy generation, posting optimization, and trending search. No overlap in purpose.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., analyze_hashtag, draft_video_script). No mixing of conventions.
With 5 tools, the server covers key TikTok marketing tasks without being too sparse or bloated. The scope is well-balanced.
The tool set covers analysis, content drafting, strategy, timing, and discovery. Missing features like post scheduling or account analytics, but the core marketing loop is present.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
MCP server for ByteDance Seedance AI video generation
Hosted MCP with 91 agent tools: X, domains, SEO, Maps, Trends, Search, YouTube, TikTok, and more.
TikTok hashtag volume over time, with growth for any hashtag. Free key at trendsmcp.ai
MCP server for Google Veo AI video generation
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/1036007003-wq/tiktok-marketing-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
