⭐ 右上のスターをクリックしてプロジェクトを応援してください | Star this Project
生のURLをバイラルヒットに変えましょう。手動で投稿を書くなんて、もう2025年の古いやり方です。
ViralTransformerは、Claudeを24時間365日稼働のソーシャルメディア・グロースハッカーに変える高性能MCPサーバーです。単なるスクレイピングにとどまらず、思考し、分析し、ドラフトを作成します。
機能 | 説明 |
「Remake」コマンド | ClaudeにURLを渡して「remake this」と言うだけ一括リライト：Claudeにリンクを渡すだけで、ビジネス向けの深掘り記事や感情を揺さぶるバイラル投稿が完成します |
デュアルバージョン出力 | LinkedIn向けの「深い洞察」と、X/SNS向けの「ハイエナジー」な投稿を生成二重出力：LinkedIn用の深い考察と、X/小紅書（RED）用の感情的なバイラル投稿を同時に生成します |
ローカルドラフト | すべての天才的なアイデアを即座に |
Related MCP server: MCP Google Maps
スターが増えるごとに、新しいクリエイティブ機能が解放されます。
スター数 | 達成内容 |
⭐50 | 毒舌マスター — AIがニュースを極めて皮肉たっぷりに書き換えます |
⭐188 | サイバーパンク2077 — テックノワールなストーリーテリング |
⭐300 | 抽象マスター — ポストモダンな「狂気」スタイル |
⭐520 | 「お見合い」プロフィール — ニュースを高級なデート用プロフィールに変換 |
⭐888 | 「シークレットエージェント」 — 競合他社を自動監視 |
FastMCP: MCPのための高性能Pythonフレームワーク。
Httpx: 高速なコンテンツ取得のための非同期エンジン。
BeautifulSoup4: 強力なHTML解析。
Pydantic: 厳格な型安全性と構造化されたデータ出力を保証。
Python 3.10+
uv (依存関係管理に推奨)
# Clone the repository
git clone https://github.com/BelleKou/mcp-viral-transformer.git
cd mcp-viral-transformer
# Install dependencies (Modern way)
uv pip install -e .
# Or the traditional way
pip install -r requirements.txtこのサーバーを使用するには、Anthropic API Keyが必要です。環境変数に設定してください：
ANTHROPIC_API_KEY: Anthropicコンソールから取得したキー。
claude_desktop_config.json に以下を追加してください：
{
"mcpServers": {
"viral-transformer": {
"command": "uv",
"args": [
"run",
"--with", "mcp",
"mcp", "run",
"/your/path/to/mcp-viral-transformer/server.py"
]
}
}
}⚠️ パスは実際のローカルパスに置き換えてください。
ソース: Anthropic's $30B Compute Deal
生成ファイル: 📄 drafts/anthropic_30b.md
⚡️ 300億ドルの計算覇権：ANTHROPIC X GOOGLE X BROADCOM
🏛️ バージョンA: プロフェッショナルな洞察
タイトル: アセットライトAIの終焉：Anthropicの垂直統合への賭け
Anthropic、Google、Broadcomによる300億ドルの提携は、地殻変動を意味します。「アルゴリズム至上主義」から「計算主権」への移行です。
ハードウェアの転換: BroadcomとのASIC共同設計により、NVIDIAのボトルネックを回避。
インフラの堀: スケーリング則には、電力網との直接的な関係が必要。
🚀 バージョンB: ハイエナジー・バイラル
タイトル: 300億ドル。それがAGIレースへの参加費です。💸
みんながプロンプトについて議論している間に、Anthropicはビルを買いました。チップも、送電線もすべてです。
🔮 ユニークな視点
AIはソフトウェアから「デジタル公共事業」へと移行しています。2026年、主要なAI企業はMicrosoftよりも、TSMCとエネルギー複合企業の組み合わせに近い姿になっているでしょう。
ソース: 36Kr - 吉利沃飞长空 IPO
生成ファイル: 📄 drafts/sky_economy.md
🚁 11社のIPO！「自動車狂人」の最後のピース：低空経済は夢ではなく、ビジネスだ。
🏛️ バージョンA: 深いビジネス考察
タイトル: 「二次元道路」から「三次元空間」へ：沃飛長空の資本戦略
沃飛長空のIPO準備開始は、「低空経済」が概念から資本回収期に入ったことを示しています。これは単なる空飛ぶ車の製造ではなく、都市空間の主権の再構築です。
🚀 バージョンB: 感情を揺さぶるバイラル文案
タイトル: 地上で消耗するのはもうやめよう！これからは「空飛ぶタクシー」で10分移動？💸
かつて笑われた「狂言」が、すべて現実になりました！空が正式に「車道」となり、低空移動の時代が到来しました。売っているのは飛行機ではなく、「渋滞を回避する特権」です。
🔮 ユニークな視点
時間主権の階級化：2026年、階級の分断は「垂直アクセス権」に現れます。沃飛長空が占有する高度300メートルは、今後50年の都市秩序の究極の解釈権となります。
.
├── server.py # Core MCP logic
├── LICENSE # MIT License
├── requirements.txt # Project dependencies
├── drafts/ # Generated markdown posts (Output)
└── README.md # DocumentationMIT Licenseの下でライセンスされています。修正および個人利用が可能です。
Saves content with a safe filename to the /drafts folder.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filename | Yes | ||
| content | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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 states 'saves content' (implying a write operation) and mentions a 'safe filename', but doesn't clarify permissions, error handling, or what 'safe' entails. This leaves significant 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's action and destination. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and has no wasted words, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values) but no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and location but lacks details on behavior and parameters, making it incomplete for a mutation tool with undocumented inputs.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'safe filename' and '/drafts folder', which adds some context for the 'filename' parameter, but doesn't explain 'content' or provide details on filename safety rules. This partial compensation is insufficient for the 2 undocumented parameters.
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 action ('Saves content') and target ('to the /drafts folder'), with the verb 'saves' being specific. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'scrape_article' (which appears unrelated), so it doesn't fully earn a 5.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions saving to '/drafts folder' but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Scrapes clean content from a URL, focusing on the main article body.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool scrapes clean content and focuses on the main article body, which hints at behavior like content cleaning and body extraction. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'clean' entails, leaving significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and focus. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 an output schema (which covers return values), no annotations, and a simple input schema, the description is minimally adequate. It specifies the tool's focus on article body content, but for a scraping tool with no behavioral annotations, it could benefit from more context on limitations or expected output format.
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?
The description does not mention the 'url' parameter explicitly, but with only 1 parameter and 0% schema description coverage, it compensates by implying the parameter's purpose through context ('from a URL'). This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail format or constraints, keeping it from a perfect score.
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 ('scrapes') and resource ('clean content from a URL'), specifying it focuses on the main article body. This distinguishes it from generic scraping tools, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'save_draft' tool, which appears unrelated.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other scraping methods or tools. It mentions focusing on the main article body, which implies a context for article content extraction, but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.
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.
v1.0.0save_draftscrape_articleScored across 2 tools
The two tools have completely distinct purposes: save_draft handles local file saving with safe naming, while scrape_article extracts clean content from URLs. There is no overlap in functionality or ambiguity between them.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (save_draft, scrape_article) with clear, descriptive names that align well with their functions. The naming style is uniform and predictable.
With only two tools, the server feels thin and under-scoped for a 'ViralTransformer' purpose, which implies content transformation or viral content handling. This minimal set limits functionality and suggests incomplete coverage of the domain.
The tool set is severely incomplete for a viral content transformation server. It lacks core operations like content generation, editing, publishing, analytics, or social media integration, leaving significant gaps that will hinder agent workflows.
MCP server for QPost — lets AI agents publish video and image posts to YouTube, TikTok, Instagram.
WordPress MCP server: generate SEO posts, AI images, autoblog & WooCommerce on your self-hosted site
Social media MCP server: your Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, LinkedIn and Threads history for your AI.
Connect any AI agent to 11+ social platforms: schedule, publish & track posts via hosted MCP.
