@avclabs.ai/enhance-mcp
Official@avclabs.ai/enhance-mcp (Node.js)
中文文档 | Inglés
Un servicio de mejora de vídeo basado en el protocolo MCP, que actúa como cliente-servidor MCP para interactuar con un servidor HTTP FastAPI.
Características
Se proporcionan las siguientes herramientas MCP:
create_task- Crear una tarea de mejora de vídeo (admite URL o carga de archivo local)get_task_status- Consultar el estado de la tareaenhance_video_sync- Mejorar un vídeo de forma síncrona (espera bloqueante)
Instalación
Instalar desde npm (Recomendado)
npm install -g @avclabs.ai/enhance-mcpO utilice yarn/pnpm:
yarn global add @avclabs.ai/enhance-mcp
pnpm add -g @avclabs.ai/enhance-mcpInstalar desde el código fuente
git clone https://github.com/avclabs/enhance-mcp.git
cd js_client
npm install
npm run buildUso
1. Línea de comandos
Utilícelo directamente después de la instalación global:
avclabs-enhance-mcp --base-url https://mcp.avc.ai --api-key your-api-keyO utilice variables de entorno:
# Windows PowerShell
$env:HTTP_API_BASE_URL="https://mcp.avc.ai"
$env:HTTP_API_KEY="your-api-key"
avclabs-enhance-mcp
# Windows CMD
set HTTP_API_BASE_URL=https://mcp.avc.ai
set HTTP_API_KEY=your-api-key
avclabs-enhance-mcp
# macOS/Linux
export HTTP_API_BASE_URL=https://mcp.avc.ai
export HTTP_API_KEY=your-api-key
avclabs-enhance-mcp2. Configurar en Claude Desktop
Edite el archivo de configuración de Claude Desktop:
macOS: ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json
Windows: %APPDATA%/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json
{
"mcpServers": {
"video-enhancement": {
"command": "avclabs-enhance-mcp",
"args": [
"--base-url",
"https://mcp.avc.ai",
"--api-key",
"your-api-key"
]
}
}
}3. Usar con npx (No requiere instalación global)
npx @avclabs.ai/enhance-mcp --base-url https://mcp.avc.ai --api-key your-api-keyConfiguración de Claude Desktop:
{
"mcpServers": {
"video-enhancement": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"@avclabs.ai/enhance-mcp",
"--base-url",
"https://mcp.avc.ai",
"--api-key",
"your-api-key"
]
}
}
}Herramientas proporcionadas
create_task
Crear una tarea de mejora de vídeo (asíncrona).
Parámetros:
video_source(string, requerido): URL del vídeo o ruta del archivo localtype(string, opcional): Tipo de carga, por defecto es "url"Opciones:
"url"- URL de vídeo de red,"local"- Ruta de archivo local
resolution(string, opcional): Resolución objetivo, por defecto es 720pOpciones: 480p, 540p, 720p, 1080p, 2k
Ejemplo:
// URL mode
{
"video_source": "https://example.com/video.mp4",
"type": "url",
"resolution": "1080p"
}
// Local file mode
{
"video_source": "/path/to/local/video.mp4",
"type": "local",
"resolution": "1080p"
}Retorno:
{
"success": true,
"task_id": "xxx",
"status": "wait"
}get_task_status
Consultar el estado de la tarea.
Parámetros:
task_id(string, requerido): ID de la tarea
Ejemplo:
{
"task_id": "task-123-abc"
}Retorno:
{
"success": true,
"task_id": "xxx",
"status": "completed",
"progress": 100,
"video_url": "https://...",
"error_message": null,
"created_at": "2024-01-01T00:00:00Z",
"updated_at": "2024-01-01T00:01:00Z"
}enhance_video_sync
Mejorar un vídeo de forma síncrona (espera bloqueante hasta completar).
Parámetros:
video_source(string, requerido): URL del vídeo o ruta del archivo localtype(string, opcional): Tipo de carga, por defecto es "url"Opciones:
"url"- URL de vídeo de red,"local"- Ruta de archivo local
resolution(string, opcional): Resolución objetivo, por defecto es 720ppoll_interval(number, opcional): Intervalo de sondeo en segundos, por defecto es 5timeout(number, opcional): Tiempo de espera en segundos, por defecto es 600
Ejemplo:
{
"video_source": "https://example.com/video.mp4",
"type": "url",
"resolution": "1080p",
"poll_interval": 5,
"timeout": 600
}Retorno:
{
"success": true,
"task_id": "xxx",
"status": "completed",
"progress": 100,
"video_url": "https://..."
}Notas sobre la carga de archivos
Cuando type se establece en "local", el servidor MCP hará lo siguiente:
Leerá el archivo local
Codificará el archivo en base64
Lo subirá al servicio de mejora de vídeo
Limitaciones:
Tamaño máximo de archivo: 100MB
Variables de entorno
Variable | Descripción | Por defecto |
| Dirección del servidor HTTP FastAPI |
|
| Clave de autenticación de API | Ninguna |
Desarrollo
# Clone the repository
git clone https://github.com/avclabs/enhance-mcp.git
cd js_client
# Install dependencies
npm install
# Development mode (auto-compile)
npm run dev
# Build
npm run buildLicencia
Licencia MIT - Consulte el archivo LICENSE para más detalles.
Available Tools
3 toolscreate_taskB
创建视频增强任务(异步)
支持两种上传方式:
URL 上传:提供视频 URL
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
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| video_source | Yes | 视频URL地址或本地文件路径 | |
| type | No | 上传类型:url=网络视频,local=本地文件 | url |
| resolution | No | 目标分辨率,默认720p | 720p |
TDQS
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
URL 上传:提供视频 URL
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)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| video_source | Yes | 视频URL地址或本地文件路径 | |
| type | No | 上传类型:url=网络视频,local=本地文件 | url |
| resolution | No | 目标分辨率,默认720p | 720p |
| poll_interval | No | 轮询间隔(秒),默认5 | |
| timeout | No | 超时时间(秒),默认600 |
TDQS
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes | 任务ID |
TDQS
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
3 tool updates
v0.1.18- First observed
create_task - First observed
enhance_video_sync - First observed
get_task_status
TDQS
Scored across 3 tools
Each tool has a distinct purpose: creating an async task, performing a synchronous enhancement, and querying task status. No overlap or ambiguity.
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.
Three tools is on the lower end but reasonable for a focused video enhancement service. Each tool serves a clear function without being redundant.
Covers creation and status checking, but lacks cancellation, listing all tasks, or retrieving final results explicitly. Minor but notable gaps.
Maintenance
Related MCP Connectors
Hosted MCP tools for FFmpeg-style video and audio processing through FFMPEG API.
Plan, compare, price, generate, and recover AI video from compatible MCP clients.
Multimodal video analysis MCP — transcription, vision, and OCR for any video URL.
Create and manage AI image and video generations through Quriov's fixed public MCP tools.