A
licenseNot graded
qualityD
maintenanceEnables AI assistants to search through structured databases and unstructured content (documents, videos, files) using natural language queries with semantic understanding.
MIT
video-material-db
by JimmyChin756
Video Material DB（動画素材セマンティックデータベース）
ショート動画の研究とおり
Video Material DB（動画素材セマンティックデータベース）
ショート動画の研究・創作のためのローカルファーストな知識ベースです。動画、字幕、AIによる構造化をPostgreSQLに一元的に保存し、Web インターフェース、REST API、MCP ツールから自然言語で検索できます。素材と分析データはデフォルトでユーザー自身の実行環境に保存されます。
主な機能
ローカルファイル、フォルダ、または公開動画リンクから素材をインポートします。
抖音、TikTok、YoTube、B站などのプラットフォームからクリエイターの動画リストを収集します。
動画の前処理、音声の文字起こし、キーフレームの抽収、視覚分析を自動的に行います。
人物、シーン、カット、字幕、ストーリー構造、笑いところ、改国型の提案を抽収します。
pgvectorを用いてセマンティックインデックスを構築し、自然言語で動画、手話、ストーリー要素を検索します。
FastAPI のWeb インターフェースで素材とバックグラウンドタスターを管理します。
MCP 経由で Codex などの AI ッールと接続します。
素材の電複除去、非同期処理、失敗時の再試行、一括エクスポツートをサポーします。
Related MCP server: youtube-mcp
用シーン
ショート動画の脚本シェーターがストーリー、字幕、笑いところ、返し、カットの参考を検索します。
コンテンツ チームが検索可能な動画ケース・ライブラリとクリエイティブ知識ベースを構築します。
人気クリエイターのコンテンテ構造、物語のテンポ、視覚表現を分析します。
大量の参考動画から、再利用可能な作パターンを発見します。
AI アシスタントに、構造化され追跡可能な動画研究資料を提供します。
技術構成
Python 3.11+
FastAPI
PostgreSQL + pgvector
MCP Server
ffmpeg / ffprobe
通义千问互換インターフェース（ASR、画像分析、ベクトル埋め込る）
クイックスタート
完全なインストール手順は INSTALL.md を参照して下さい。素材はデフォルトで、プロジェクトのローカルディレクトリ ./data に保存されます。
python3 -m venv .venv
.venv/bin/pip install -e .
cp .env.example .envデータベースを起動した後、Web サービスとバックグラウンド分析タスターをそれぞれに実行します。
.venv/bin/video-db-api
.venv/bin/video-db-workerブラウザで http://127.0.0.1:8000/ を開いてください。
MCP 過入
codex mcp add video-material-db -- <仓库绝对路径>/.venv/bin/video-db-mcp利用可能なツールは、add_video_url、add_local_video、search_videos、search_dialogue、search_jokes、search_story_structure、get_video_detail が含まれます。
データとセキュリティ
公開リポジトリにはプロセス・ソース・コーードのみが含まれます。.env、API キー、動画ファイル、データベース内容、バックアウプ、ローカルマシーン、および各人データはバージョン管理の対象外です。
Available Tools
8 toolsadd_local_videoD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
TDQS
D1/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
add_video_urlD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes |
TDQS
D1/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
build_remake_contextD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| video_id | Yes |
TDQS
D1/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_video_detailD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| video_id | Yes |
TDQS
D1/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_dialogueD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
TDQS
D1/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_jokesD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
TDQS
D1/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_story_structureD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
TDQS
D1/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_videosD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
TDQS
D1/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
8 tool updates
v0.2.1- First observed
add_local_video - First observed
add_video_url - First observed
build_remake_context - First observed
get_video_detail - First observed
search_dialogue - First observed
search_jokes - First observed
search_story_structure - First observed
search_videos
TDQS
C2.1/5.0
Scored across 8 tools
Disambiguation5/5
All tools have clearly distinct purposes. Adding via URL vs local file are distinct, and the various search tools target different content types (videos, dialogue, jokes, story structure), so there is no ambiguity in what each tool does.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow the same verb_noun pattern in snake_case: add_, search_, get_, build_. This is fully consistent across the entire set.
Tool Count5/5
8 tools is well-scoped for a video material database. The set covers ingestion (add), retrieval (search, get), and a specialized operation (build_remake_context) without unnecessary bloat.
Completeness4/5
The main workflows of adding, searching across content types, and retrieving details are covered. Minor gaps exist—no update/delete operations for videos and no general list all videos—but agents can work around these with the provided search tools.
Maintenance
ActivityStale
ResponsivenessNo issues
Related MCP Connectors
Video analysis AI: transcripts, summaries, visual scenes/shots, clips, answers in natural language.
Video knowledge base for agents: search your library's transcripts, keyframes and on-screen text.
Edit video by talking to your AI — search footage, cut timelines, apply effects, add captions.
Shot breakdowns of video clips, plus logos and brand kits, for any AI assistant.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables AI assistants to watch YouTube videos by extracting frames at scene changes and visual references, pairing each frame with the exact words spoken at that timestamp. Provides dense frame-transcript interleaving for any model.19 npm5MIT
VZT Video-Intelofficial
AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceSelf-hosted video intelligence pipeline that turns video into structured, citable, queryable JSON scene graphs, enabling AI assistants to analyze and search across video libraries without re-processing.15 npm1MIT- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables natural language search through personal video collections, returning AI-generated descriptions and direct URLs to relevant 30-second video clips.-