Una implementación de servidor MCP que se integra con la API de 4o-image, lo que permite a los LLM y otros sistemas de IA generar y editar imágenes mediante un protocolo estandarizado. Cree arte de alta calidad, personajes 3D e imágenes personalizadas con sencillas indicaciones de texto.
Generación de texto a imagen : crea imágenes a partir de descripciones de texto con IA
Edición de imágenes : transforme imágenes existentes mediante indicaciones de texto
Actualizaciones de progreso en tiempo real : obtenga comentarios sobre el estado de la generación
Integración del navegador : abre automáticamente las imágenes generadas en tu navegador predeterminado
Related MCP server: image-forge-mcp
generarImagen
Genere imágenes basadas en indicaciones de texto con edición de imágenes opcional
Entradas:
prompt (cadena, obligatorio): descripción de texto de la imagen deseada
imageBase64 (cadena, opcional): imagen codificada en Base64 para edición o transferencia de estilo
Regístrese para obtener una cuenta en 4o-image.app
Obtenga su clave API desde el panel de usuario
Establezca la clave API como una variable de entorno al ejecutar el servidor
Agregue esto a su claude_desktop_config.json :
{
"mcpServers": {
"4o-image": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"-y",
"4oimage-mcp"
],
"env": {
"API_KEY": "YOUR_API_KEY_HERE"
}
}
}
}A continuación se muestra un ejemplo del uso de este servidor MCP con Claude:
Generate an image of a dog running on the beach at sunsetClaude usará el servidor MCP para generar la imagen, que se abrirá automáticamente en tu navegador predeterminado. También recibirás un enlace directo a la imagen en la respuesta de Claude.
Para editar imágenes, puedes incluir una imagen base y pedirle a Claude que la modifique:
Edit this image to make the sky more dramatic with storm cloudsEste servidor MCP está licenciado bajo la Licencia MIT. Puede usar, modificar y distribuir el software libremente, sujeto a los términos y condiciones de la Licencia MIT.
Generate images using the 4o-image API and automatically open the results in your browser.
This tool generates images based on your prompt and automatically opens them in your default browser, while also returning a clickable link.
The tool supports two modes:
Text-to-image - Create new images using just a text prompt
Image editing - Provide a base image and prompt for editing or style transfer
The response will include a direct link to the generated image and detailed information.
Visit our website: https://4o-image.app/
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| imageBase64 | No | Optional base image (Base64 encoded) for image editing or upscaling | |
| prompt | Yes | Text description of the desired image content |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context beyond the input schema by describing automatic browser opening, return of a clickable link, and support for two modes. However, it does not cover important behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or response format details, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.
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 well-structured and front-loaded, starting with the core functionality and then detailing modes and responses. Most sentences add value, but the final promotional sentence ('Visit our website...') is extraneous and does not aid tool selection or invocation, slightly reducing efficiency.
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 complexity (image generation with two modes), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, usage modes, and some behavioral aspects (browser opening, link return), but lacks details on output structure, error cases, or operational constraints, which are important for a tool without structured output documentation.
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%, so the input schema already documents both parameters (imageBase64 and prompt) adequately. The description adds marginal value by explaining the two modes that correspond to these parameters, but it does not provide additional syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema states. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 images using the 4o-image API' and specifies it 'automatically opens the results in your browser.' It distinguishes between text-to-image and image editing modes, providing specific functionality details. However, without sibling tools, differentiation from alternatives is not applicable, preventing a perfect score.
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 provides clear usage context by outlining two modes (text-to-image and image editing) and indicating when to use each based on whether an imageBase64 parameter is provided. It mentions that the tool opens results in the browser and returns a clickable link, offering practical guidance. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to alternatives, as no sibling tools exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0generateImageScored across 1 tool
With only one tool, there is no possibility of ambiguity or overlap between tools. The single tool 'generateImage' has a clear, distinct purpose for image generation and editing.
The tool name 'generateImage' follows a consistent verb_noun pattern, and with only one tool, there is no inconsistency to evaluate. The naming is clear and appropriate for its function.
A single tool is too few for the server's purpose of image generation and editing, as it lacks coverage for related operations like listing generated images, managing settings, or handling errors. This minimal set limits agent functionality and feels incomplete for the domain.
The tool surface is severely incomplete for an image generation server. While 'generateImage' covers creation and editing, there are obvious gaps such as no tools for retrieving past images, deleting images, or configuring generation parameters, which are essential for a full workflow.
MCP server for Qwen Image 3 AI image generation
Generate AI images and videos from any compatible MCP client.
Generate game-ready 3D models, textures, and audio from natural language, over MCP.
MCP server for Hailuo (MiniMax) AI video generation