Web3 기능을 갖춘 Framer 플러그인을 생성하고 관리할 수 있는 모델 컨텍스트 프로토콜(MCP) 서버입니다. 이 서버는 지갑 연결, 계약 상호작용, NFT 표시와 같은 통합 Web3 기능을 갖춘 Framer 플러그인을 생성, 빌드 및 관리하는 도구를 제공합니다.
Web3 기능을 갖춘 새로운 Framer 플러그인 만들기
프로덕션을 위한 플러그인 빌드
통합된 Web3 기능:
Wallet Connect 통합
스마트 계약 상호 작용
NFT 디스플레이 구성 요소
Related MCP server: Base MCP Server
Node.js 16 이상
NPM 또는 Yarn
플러그인 테스트를 위한 Framer 데스크톱 앱
이 저장소를 복제하세요:
지엑스피1
종속성 설치:
npm install서버를 빌드하세요:
npm run buildMCP 설정 파일에 서버를 추가합니다.
Claude 데스크톱 앱( ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json )의 경우:
{
"mcpServers": {
"framer-plugin": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["/path/to/framer-plugin-mcp/build/index.js"]
}
}
}Cursor/Claude Dev( ~/Library/Application Support/Cursor/User/globalStorage/saoudrizwan.claude-dev/settings/cline_mcp_settings.json ):
{
"mcpServers": {
"framer-plugin": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["/path/to/framer-plugin-mcp/build/index.js"]
}
}
}구성이 완료되면 서버는 다음과 같은 도구를 제공합니다.
Web3 기능을 갖춘 새로운 Framer 플러그인 프로젝트를 만듭니다.
매개변수:
이름: 플러그인 이름
설명: 플러그인 설명
outputPath: 출력 디렉토리 경로
web3Features: 포함할 기능 배열(지갑 연결, 계약 상호 작용, NFT 디스플레이)
예:
{
"name": "my-web3-plugin",
"description": "A Framer plugin with web3 features",
"outputPath": "./plugins/my-web3-plugin",
"web3Features": ["wallet-connect", "nft-display"]
}프로덕션을 위한 Framer 플러그인 프로젝트를 빌드합니다.
매개변수:
pluginPath: 플러그인 디렉토리 경로
예:
{
"pluginPath": "./plugins/my-web3-plugin"
}기여를 환영합니다! 풀 리퀘스트를 제출해 주세요.
MIT 라이센스 - 자세한 내용은 라이센스 파일을 참조하세요.
Build a Framer plugin project
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pluginPath | Yes | Path to plugin directory |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Build' implies a potentially complex or resource-intensive operation, but the description doesn't mention side effects, permissions, output format, or error conditions. It lacks critical behavioral details 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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information efficiently.
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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'build' entails (e.g., compilation, packaging), what the result is, or any behavioral context. For a tool with no structured metadata, this minimal description leaves significant gaps.
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% (the single parameter 'pluginPath' is documented in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, but it doesn't need to compensate for gaps.
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 ('Build') and target resource ('a Framer plugin project'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'create_plugin', which might be a related but distinct operation.
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 like 'create_plugin', nor does it mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. It simply states what the tool does without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Create a new Framer plugin project with web3 capabilities
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| description | Yes | Plugin description | |
| name | Yes | Plugin name | |
| outputPath | Yes | Output directory path | |
| web3Features | No | Web3 features to include |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates something but doesn't mention side effects (e.g., file system changes, dependencies installation), permissions required, or error handling. This is inadequate for a creation tool with potential system impacts.
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 purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 creates a project (a complex operation) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover what the output looks like, success/failure conditions, or system requirements, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use it effectively.
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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters well. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying 'web3 capabilities' relates to the 'web3Features' parameter. 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 action ('Create') and resource ('new Framer plugin project with web3 capabilities'), providing a specific purpose. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'build_plugin' (which likely builds existing plugins rather than creating new ones), 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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the sibling 'build_plugin'. It lacks context about prerequisites, dependencies, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate, leaving the agent without usage direction.
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. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v1.0.0build_plugincreate_pluginThe two tools have clearly distinct purposes: 'build_plugin' handles compiling an existing project, while 'create_plugin' initiates a new project with specific web3 features. There is no overlap in functionality, making tool selection straightforward for an agent.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun naming pattern ('build_plugin' and 'create_plugin'), using snake_case and clear action verbs. This uniformity aids in predictability and readability across the tool set.
With only two tools, the server feels under-scoped for a plugin development domain. Typical plugin workflows would require additional operations like testing, deploying, or managing dependencies, making this set too thin for comprehensive agent support.
The tool set is severely incomplete for Framer plugin development. It lacks essential CRUD operations such as updating, deleting, or testing plugins, and misses lifecycle coverage like deployment or version management, which are critical for this domain.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Helps AI coding agents integrate MetaMask Embedded Wallets (Web3Auth) SDKs.
AI-powered design and management for Webflow Sites
Access and maintain design system docs, tokens, components, skills, and contexts across any project.
Collaboration layer for AI agents. Publish assets, send messages, manage threads and contacts.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Sheshiyer/framer-plugin-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
