Skip to main content
Glama
deenesjakoruzh
avclabs

@avclabs.ai/enhance-mcp

Official
by avclabs
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions(1)
JavaScript
Hybrid

@avclabs.ai/enhance-mcp (Node.js)

中文 | English

npm version Node.js >=18 License: MIT

基于 MCP 协议的视频增强服务，作为 MCP Client-Server 与 FastAPI HTTP Server 交互。

功能

提供以下 MCP Tools：

  • create_task - 创建视频增强任务（支持 URL 或本地文件上传）

  • get_task_status - 查询任务状态

  • enhance_video_sync - 同步增强视频（阻塞等待完成）

前置要求

  • Node.js >= 18（检查：node --version）

  • API Key（从控制台创建）

懒人安装（推荐）

如果你使用的 AI Agent 有确定的 MCP 配置路径，直接复制下面这句发给 AI：

帮我安装 npm 包 @avclabs.ai/enhance-mcp 作为 MCP server。我的 API Key 是：sk-xxxxxxxx。

AI 会自动完成：

  1. 检测你使用的 MCP 客户端

  2. 找到配置文件路径

  3. 写入正确的配置

  4. 提示你重启客户端

手动安装

无需安装，直接在 MCP 客户端配置中使用 npx 运行。

1. Claude Code（CLI）

在 Claude Code 中运行：

/mcp

查看输出中 "User MCPs" 对应的配置文件路径，然后编辑该文件。

常见路径（如果 /mcp 不可用）：

  • Windows: %USERPROFILE%\.claude.json

  • macOS: ~/.claude.json

  • Linux: ~/.claude.json

  • 旧版/备用: ~/.claude/mcp.json

粘贴以下内容（将 your-api-key 替换为实际 API Key）：

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "video-enhancement": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "@avclabs.ai/enhance-mcp"],
      "env": {
        "HTTP_API_KEY": "your-api-key"
      }
    }
  }
}

保存后运行 /mcp 验证是否加载成功。

2. Cursor

进入 设置 > Tools & MCPs > Add New MCP Server：

  • Name：video-enhancement

  • Type：command

  • Command：

    env HTTP_API_KEY=your-api-key npx -y @avclabs.ai/enhance-mcp

或编辑 ~/.cursor/mcp.json：

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "video-enhancement": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "@avclabs.ai/enhance-mcp"],
      "env": {
        "HTTP_API_KEY": "your-api-key"
      }
    }
  }
}

验证安装

重启客户端后，确认工具是否加载成功：

  1. 或直接问 AI："你有哪些可用的工具？"

  2. 应看到：create_task、get_task_status、enhance_video_sync

配置项

变量名

必填

默认值

说明

HTTP_API_KEY

是

-

API 认证密钥

HTTP_API_BASE_URL

否

https://mcp.avc.ai

服务接口地址

自定义服务地址

{
  "env": {
    "HTTP_API_BASE_URL": "https://your-endpoint.com",
    "HTTP_API_KEY": "your-api-key"
  }
}

或通过命令行参数：

npx -y @avclabs.ai/enhance-mcp --base-url https://your-endpoint.com --api-key your-api-key

使用示例

配置完成后，用自然语言对 AI 说：

"帮我把这个视频增强到 1080p：https://example.com/video.mp4"

"把我桌面的 video.mp4 提升到 2k 画质"

AI 会自动调用相应工具完成任务。

提供的 Tools

create_task

创建视频增强任务（异步）。

参数

类型

必填

默认值

说明

video_source

string

是

-

视频 URL 或本地文件路径

type

string

否

url

url 或 local

resolution

string

否

720p

480p、540p、720p、1080p、2k

返回值：

{
  "success": true,
  "task_id": "xxx",
  "status": "wait"
}

get_task_status

查询任务状态。

参数

类型

必填

task_id

string

是

返回值：

{
  "success": true,
  "task_id": "xxx",
  "status": "completed",
  "progress": 100,
  "video_url": "https://..."
}

enhance_video_sync

同步增强视频（阻塞等待完成）。

参数

类型

必填

默认值

说明

video_source

string

是

-

视频 URL 或本地文件路径

type

string

否

url

url 或 local

resolution

string

否

720p

目标分辨率

poll_interval

number

否

5

轮询间隔（秒）

timeout

number

否

600

超时时间（秒）

文件上传说明

当 type 为 "local" 时，MCP Server 会：

  1. 读取本地文件

  2. 通过预签名 URL 直传到 TOS 对象存储

  3. 最大文件大小：100MB

故障排查

"command not found: npx"

安装 Node.js >= 18：https://nodejs.org/

"错误: 需要提供 --api-key 或设置 HTTP_API_KEY"

API Key 缺失，请检查配置中的 env.HTTP_API_KEY。

MCP Server 在客户端显示红色/错误

查看日志：

  • Claude Desktop macOS：~/Library/Logs/Claude/mcp*.log

  • Claude Desktop Windows：%APPDATA%\Claude\logs\mcp*.log

  • Cursor：Output 面板 > MCP

"TOS 上传失败"

通常是签名不匹配，请确认 HTTP_API_BASE_URL 和 HTTP_API_KEY 正确且有效。

全局安装（可选）

如果你不想每次都用 npx：

npm install -g @avclabs.ai/enhance-mcp

然后在配置中使用 "command": "avclabs-enhance-mcp" 配合 "args": ["--api-key", "your-api-key"] 。

License

MIT License - 详见 LICENSE 文件

Available Tools

3 tools
create_taskB

创建视频增强任务（异步）

支持两种上传方式：

  1. URL 上传：提供视频 URL

  2. 本地上传：提供本地文件路径，MCP Server 自动上传到 TOS 对象存储

参数说明：

  • video_source: 视频 URL 或本地文件路径

  • type: "url" 或 "local"

  • resolution: 目标分辨率

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
video_sourceYes视频URL地址或本地文件路径
typeNo上传类型：url=网络视频，local=本地文件url
resolutionNo目标分辨率，默认720p720p

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It notes the task is async, but fails to mention authentication needs, rate limits, or the return format (e.g., task ID). It also does not disclose any side effects or failure behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Description uses bullet points and is relatively concise. Each paragraph serves a purpose, though some wording could be tightened.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description explains the async nature and upload methods, but it lacks return value details (no output schema) and does not mention error cases or post-creation steps. Given the tool's complexity, it is minimally adequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the description adds value by explaining that local files are automatically uploaded to TOS storage, which is not in the schema. It also summarizes parameter meanings clearly.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool creates an asynchronous video enhancement task and lists two upload methods. It implicitly differentiates from the sibling 'enhance_video_sync' which is synchronous, but does not explicitly name the sibling.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains the two upload methods and parameter defaults, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

enhance_video_syncA

同步增强视频（阻塞等待完成）

支持两种上传方式：

  1. URL 上传：提供视频 URL

  2. 本地上传：提供本地文件路径，MCP Server 自动上传到 TOS 对象存储

参数说明：

  • video_source: 视频 URL 或本地文件路径

  • type: "url" 或 "local"

  • resolution: 目标分辨率

  • poll_interval: 轮询间隔（秒）

  • timeout: 超时时间（秒）

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
video_sourceYes视频URL地址或本地文件路径
typeNo上传类型：url=网络视频，local=本地文件url
resolutionNo目标分辨率，默认720p720p
poll_intervalNo轮询间隔（秒），默认5
timeoutNo超时时间（秒），默认600

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses blocking behavior and automatic upload to TOS for local files, but lacks details on error handling, side effects, or required permissions. Without annotations, the description carries the full burden but still provides moderate transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise with a clear front-loaded purpose and well-structured bullet points for parameters. Every sentence adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers all 5 parameters, behavior (blocking), and upload methods. It omits expected return value and prerequisites, but given the lack of output schema, it is sufficiently complete for invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds value by grouping parameters and explaining the two upload methods, which goes beyond the schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool synchronously enhances video and blocks until completion. It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_task and get_task_status by focusing specifically on video enhancement.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. However, the context of video enhancement is clear, and the sibling tools handle different tasks, so usage is implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

get_task_statusA

查询视频增强任务状态

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
task_idYes任务ID

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, and the description only states the purpose without disclosing any behavioral traits such as polling requirements, rate limits, or expected response behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence with no wasted words; efficient and to the point.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple status query with one parameter, the description is mostly complete but could benefit from mentioning possible return statuses or output format since no output schema is provided.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the description adds no additional meaning beyond what is already in the input schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'query' and the resource 'video enhancement task status', distinguishing from sibling tools 'create_task' and 'enhance_video_sync' which have different actions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the context of sibling tools implies it is for checking status after creation or enhancement.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a distinct purpose: creating an async task, performing a synchronous enhancement, and querying task status. No overlap or ambiguity.

Naming Consistency4/5

All names use snake_case and verb_noun pattern, but the verbs vary (create, enhance, get) and 'enhance_video_sync' mixes a descriptor. Mostly consistent.

Tool Count4/5

Three tools is on the lower end but reasonable for a focused video enhancement service. Each tool serves a clear function without being redundant.

Completeness3/5

Covers creation and status checking, but lacks cancellation, listing all tasks, or retrieving final results explicitly. Minor but notable gaps.

Maintenance

ActivityNo data
ResponsivenessSyncing

Resources

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/avclabs/enhance-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server