一个模型上下文协议 (MCP) 服务器，支持创建和管理具有 web3 功能的 Framer 插件。该服务器提供创建、构建和管理 Framer 插件的工具，这些插件集成了 web3 功能，例如钱包连接、合约交互和 NFT 显示。
创建具有 web3 功能的新 Framer 插件
构建生产插件
集成的 web3 功能：
Wallet Connect 集成
智能合约交互
NFT显示组件
Related MCP server: Framer Bridge MCP
Node.js 16 或更高版本
NPM 或 Yarn
用于测试插件的 Framer 桌面应用程序
克隆此存储库：
git clone https://github.com/sheshiyer/framer-plugin-mcp.git
cd framer-plugin-mcp安装依赖项：
npm install构建服务器：
npm run build将服务器添加到您的 MCP 设置文件：
对于 Claude 桌面应用程序（ ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json ）：
{
"mcpServers": {
"framer-plugin": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["/path/to/framer-plugin-mcp/build/index.js"]
}
}
}对于 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"]
}
}
}配置完成后，服务器将提供以下工具：
创建具有 web3 功能的新 Framer 插件项目。
参数：
name：插件名称
描述：插件描述
outputPath：输出目录路径
web3Features：包含的功能数组（钱包连接、合约交互、nft 显示）
例子：
{
"name": "my-web3-plugin",
"description": "A Framer plugin with web3 features",
"outputPath": "./plugins/my-web3-plugin",
"web3Features": ["wallet-connect", "nft-display"]
}构建一个 Framer 插件项目用于生产。
参数：
pluginPath：插件目录的路径
例子：
{
"pluginPath": "./plugins/my-web3-plugin"
}欢迎贡献代码！欢迎提交 Pull 请求。
MIT 许可证 - 详情请参阅许可证文件
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.
v1.0.0build_plugincreate_pluginScored across 2 tools
The 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.
Edit and publish your FramerToNextJS sites (converted Framer or AI-built) from Claude, Cursor or Codex. 19 tools: read pages, rewrite copy, restyle elements, add sections and pages, design Studio sites, manage CMS collections and items, then publish to your own host. OAuth with a read-only option, and MCP runs no model on FNJ's side. Requires an FNJ plan (Lifetime or any AI builder plan).
Helps AI coding agents integrate MetaMask Embedded Wallets (Web3Auth) SDKs.
AI-powered design and management for Webflow Sites
AI Agent Utility Layer for agent safety, web monitoring, crypto research and tool discovery.
