media-mcp
Officialmedia-mcp (Node.js)
Deployment update (2026-09-06): the SAM3 source and release scripts are now maintained in
sam3-http-server, rooted at/opt/ai/sam3. API schema candidate head is20260906_0007. SAM3 production bootstrap and nine-tool E2E remain pending. See the four-project rollout.
English | 中文
A video enhancement, image enhancement/colorization/denoising, and image segmentation service based on the MCP protocol, acting as an MCP Client-Server to interact with backend HTTP Servers.
Release status (2026-09-06): npm
latestis0.2.1; that published artifact contains 5 tools (3 video + 2 SAM3) and its runtime metadata incorrectly reports0.3.0. This repository is the unreleased0.3.0candidate, which fixes version consistency and adds 4 image tools plus an optionalIMAGE_API_BASE_URLoverride. Image and video share the same public HTTP server and/enhancebase URL; the candidate backend keeps their prepare concurrency, Redis queues, workers, and processing concurrency separate. The image routes now exist in candidate code but are not deployed or real-AI/TOS verified, so the image tools below are not a production npm capability until all 9 tools pass smoke tests and0.3.0is published.
Features
Provides the following MCP Tools:
Video Enhancement
create_task- Create a video enhancement task (supports URL or local file upload)get_task_status- Query task statusenhance_video_sync- Synchronously enhance video (blocking wait, truncated at ~50s by default)
Image Enhancement (unreleased 0.3.0 candidate)
enhance_image_sync- Enhance image quality and optimize faces (supports URL or local file upload)colorize_image_sync- Colorize black-and-white photos (supports URL or local file upload)denoise_image_sync- Remove noise from images (supports URL or local file upload)get_image_task_status- Query image task status (for polling after sync timeout)
Image Segmentation (SAM3)
sam3_predict- SAM3 image segmentation (supports local path, URL, or Base64 image)get_sam3_task_status- Query SAM3 task status (for polling after sync timeout)
Related MCP server: Grok Imagine Video MCP Server
Prerequisites
Node.js >= 18 (check:
node --version)API Key (required for authentication)
Lazy Install (Recommended)
If your AI Agent has a known MCP config path, just copy the line below and send it to your AI:
Install the npm package @avclabs.ai/media-mcp as an MCP server. My API Key is: sk-xxxxxxxx.The AI will automatically:
Detect your MCP client
Find the config file path
Write the correct configuration
Prompt you to restart the client
Manual Install
No installation needed. Use npx directly in your MCP client config.
1. Claude Code (CLI)
Run in Claude Code:
/mcpCheck the output for the "User MCPs" section to find the config file path, then edit that file.
Common paths (if /mcp is unavailable):
Windows:
%USERPROFILE%\.claude.jsonmacOS:
~/.claude.jsonLinux:
~/.claude.jsonLegacy/Alternative:
~/.claude/mcp.json
Paste this (replace your-api-key):
{
"mcpServers": {
"video-enhancement": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "@avclabs.ai/media-mcp@latest"],
"env": {
"API_KEY": "your-api-key"
}
}
}
}Save and run /mcp to verify it's loaded.
2. Cursor
Go to Settings > Tools & MCPs > Add New MCP Server:
Name:
video-enhancementType:
commandCommand:
env API_KEY=your-api-key npx -y @avclabs.ai/media-mcp@latest
Or edit ~/.cursor/mcp.json:
{
"mcpServers": {
"video-enhancement": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "@avclabs.ai/media-mcp@latest"],
"env": {
"API_KEY": "your-api-key"
}
}
}
}Verify Installation
After restarting your client, check if the tools are available:
Or ask: "What tools do you have available?"
With the current npm
latest=0.2.1, you should seecreate_task,get_task_status,enhance_video_sync,sam3_predict, andget_sam3_task_status.After
0.3.0is published, you should additionally seeenhance_image_sync,colorize_image_sync,denoise_image_sync, andget_image_task_status.
Configuration Options
Variable | Required | Default | Description |
| Yes | - | API authentication key (shared by video, image, and SAM3 services) |
| No |
| Shared video and image HTTP service endpoint |
| No | Same as | Optional image endpoint override; omit for the shared production server |
| No |
| SAM3 service endpoint |
| No |
| SAM3 polling interval (milliseconds) |
| No |
| SAM3 maximum polling attempts |
IMAGE_API_BASE_URL is implemented by the unreleased 0.3.0 candidate as an optional override. Production uses the shared /enhance service, so it should normally be omitted; the candidate then resolves image and video calls to the same base URL.
Custom Endpoint (0.3.0 candidate)
{
"env": {
"HTTP_API_BASE_URL": "https://your-media-endpoint.com",
"API_KEY": "your-api-key",
"SAM3_API_BASE_URL": "https://your-sam3-endpoint.com"
}
}Or via CLI args:
npx -y @avclabs.ai/media-mcp@0.3.0 --base-url https://your-media-endpoint.com --api-key your-api-key --sam3-base-url https://your-sam3-endpoint.comRun this command only after 0.3.0 is published. The optional --image-base-url remains available only for deployments that intentionally split the public image endpoint; npm 0.2.1 does not support it.
Recommended Workflow
This project provides both synchronous and asynchronous modes.
Because MCP Agents typically enforce a ~60-second timeout per tool call, tasks with longer processing times (video enhancement) are strongly recommended to use asynchronous mode:
Asynchronous Mode (Recommended)
Video Enhancement:
Call
create_taskto create a task → immediately gettask_idWait a few seconds, then call
get_task_statusto query the statusIf
statusisprocessing, continue waiting and repeat step 2If
statusiscompleted, the task is done and the result containsvideo_urlIf
statusisfailed, the task failed and the result containserror_message
Synchronous Mode (Simple Scenarios)
Video Enhancement:
Call
enhance_video_sync→ the server polls internallyDefaults to a maximum wait of 50 seconds
If completed within 50 seconds, returns the result directly
If not completed within 50 seconds, returns
task_idand instructions for the Agent to switch toget_task_status
Image Segmentation (SAM3):
Call
sam3_predict→ the server polls internallyDefaults to a maximum wait of 50 seconds (25 attempts × 2-second polling interval)
If completed within 50 seconds, returns the segmentation result directly
If not completed within 50 seconds, returns a truncation notice indicating the task is still processing
Usage Examples
Once configured, ask your AI agent naturally:
"Enhance this video to 1080p: https://example.com/video.mp4"
"Improve the quality of /Users/me/Desktop/video.mp4 to 2k"
"Enhance this image: https://example.com/photo.jpg"
"Colorize this black-and-white photo: /Users/me/Desktop/old_photo.png"
"Remove noise from this image: C:\Users\xxx\noisy.jpg"
"Analyze this image and find all objects: C:\Users\xxx\photo.png"
"Use SAM3 to segment this image, prompt: 'find all cars'"
The agent will automatically choose sync or async tools based on task complexity.
Provided Tools
Video Enhancement
create_task
Create an asynchronous video enhancement task.
Recommended for most use cases. Ideal for longer videos (over 10 seconds) to avoid timeouts and blocking the connection.
Parameter | Type | Required | Default | Description |
| string | Yes | - | Video URL or local file path (URL must be publicly accessible, links requiring login or signatures are not supported) |
| string | No |
|
|
| string | No |
|
|
Returns:
{
"success": true,
"task_id": "xxx",
"status": "processing"
}get_task_status
Query video enhancement task status.
The returned
statusfield can be:processing,completed, orfailed. Ifstatusisprocessing, you need to wait a few seconds and call this tool again.
Parameter | Type | Required |
| string | Yes |
Returns:
{
"success": true,
"task_id": "xxx",
"status": "completed",
"progress": 100,
"video_url": "https://...",
"message": "Task is still processing, please check again later"
}The message field only appears when status is processing, prompting the Agent to continue waiting.
enhance_video_sync
Synchronously enhance video (blocks until completion).
Best for short videos (estimated processing time < 1 minute). If the task is not completed within 50 seconds, the tool returns early with a
task_id, and you need to useget_task_statusto continue querying.
Parameter | Type | Required | Default | Description |
| string | Yes | - | Video URL or local file path |
| string | No |
|
|
| string | No |
| Target resolution |
| number | No |
| Poll interval (seconds) |
| number | No |
| Sync wait timeout (seconds), returns early when exceeded |
Truncated return example (not completed within 50s):
{
"success": true,
"status": "processing",
"task_id": "xxx",
"message": "Task is still processing (waited 50 seconds). Please use get_task_status to continue polling.",
"note": "The synchronous wait for this long-running task has been truncated. Switch to get_task_status polling."
}Image Enhancement
Three image processing tools are provided, each targeting a specific use case:
Tool | Function | Use Case |
| Image quality enhancement & face optimization | Blurry, low-resolution, or degraded photos |
| Black-and-white photo colorization | Restoring old B&W photos with realistic colors |
| Image noise removal | Noisy/grainy photos taken in low light |
All three tools share the same parameters and behavior pattern. They are synchronous — the tool blocks until the image is processed or the timeout is reached.
Supported image formats: PNG, JPG, JPEG, BMP, WebP, etc.
Two upload methods:
URL upload: provide a publicly accessible image URL (
type: "url")Local upload: provide a local file path, the MCP Server auto-uploads to TOS object storage (
type: "local", max file size: 100MB)
enhance_image_sync
Synchronously enhance an image to improve quality and optimize faces.
The tool internally creates a task and polls for the result. If processing completes within the timeout (default 50s), the result is returned directly. If not, the tool returns early with a
task_id— useget_image_task_statusto continue polling.
Parameter | Type | Required | Default | Description |
| string | Yes | - | Image URL or local file path (URL must be publicly accessible, links requiring login or signatures are not supported) |
| string | No |
|
|
| number | No |
| Enhancement scale multiplier (e.g. |
| number | No |
| Poll interval in seconds |
| number | No |
| Sync wait timeout in seconds, returns early when exceeded |
Normal completion return:
{
"success": true,
"task_id": "xxx",
"status": "completed",
"progress": 100,
"image_url": "https://..."
}Truncated return (not completed within 50s):
{
"success": true,
"status": "processing",
"task_id": "xxx",
"message": "Task is still processing (waited 50 seconds). Please use get_image_task_status to continue polling.",
"note": "The synchronous wait for this long-running task has been truncated. Switch to get_image_task_status polling."
}colorize_image_sync
Synchronously colorize a black-and-white photo with AI.
Best for old black-and-white photos. The AI will add realistic colors to the image. Supports the same parameters and return format as
enhance_image_sync.
Parameter | Type | Required | Default | Description |
| string | Yes | - | Image URL or local file path (URL must be publicly accessible, links requiring login or signatures are not supported) |
| string | No |
|
|
| number | No |
| Poll interval in seconds |
| number | No |
| Sync wait timeout in seconds, returns early when exceeded |
Returns: Same format as enhance_image_sync.
denoise_image_sync
Synchronously remove noise from an image.
Best for grainy/noisy photos taken in low-light conditions or with high ISO settings. Supports the same parameters and return format as
enhance_image_sync.
Parameter | Type | Required | Default | Description |
| string | Yes | - | Image URL or local file path (URL must be publicly accessible, links requiring login or signatures are not supported) |
| string | No |
|
|
| number | No |
| Poll interval in seconds |
| number | No |
| Sync wait timeout in seconds, returns early when exceeded |
Returns: Same format as enhance_image_sync.
get_image_task_status
Query image processing task status. Used to poll for results when a sync tool times out.
The returned
statusfield can be:processing,completed, orfailed. Ifstatusisprocessing, wait a few seconds and call this tool again.
Parameter | Type | Required |
| string | Yes |
Returns:
{
"success": true,
"task_id": "xxx",
"status": "completed",
"progress": 100,
"image_url": "https://...",
"message": "Task is still processing, please check again later"
}The message field only appears when status is processing, prompting the Agent to continue waiting.
Recommended Workflow for Image Tools
For most images: Call
enhance_image_sync/colorize_image_sync/denoise_image_syncdirectly — the tool handles everything and returns the resultIf truncated: The tool returns a
task_id, then useget_image_task_statusto poll untilstatusbecomescompletedorfailedIf failed: Check the
error_messagefield for details
Image Segmentation (SAM3)
sam3_predict
Analyze an image using the SAM3 segmentation API to generate inference results (masks, boxes, scores).
Parameters:
Image input (choose one, must provide exactly one):
imagePath(string): Absolute path of a local image file. Supports common formats (PNG, JPG, JPEG).Example:
"C:\\Users\\xxx\\photo.png","/home/user/images/cat.jpg"Use when: The user explicitly provides a local file path
imageUrl(string): Publicly accessible URL of the image.Example:
"https://example.com/photo.jpg"Use when: The image is already online and the user provides a link
Note: The URL must be publicly accessible. Links requiring login or signatures are not supported
imageBase64(string): Base64-encoded image data.Example:
"iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAA..."Use when: The user drags or uploads an image attachment, and the Agent encodes it as base64
Note: Large images will produce very large base64 strings, which may slow transmission
Other parameters:
prompt(string, required): English text prompt specifying the target object to segment. Since the SAM3 model only accepts English prompts, provide an English description. If the user provides Chinese or other non-English text, the Agent will automatically translate it before calling the tool.
Normal completion return:
After inference completes, returns a JSON string containing three fields:
masks: 2D array. Each element is a binary mask (values 0 or 1) with the same dimensions as the input image, marking the pixel-level location of detected objects. The i-th mask corresponds to the i-th detected object instance.boxes: 2D array. Each element is a bounding box in[x1, y1, x2, y2]format, representing the rectangular region of the detected object.x1,y1are the top-left coordinates;x2,y2are the bottom-right coordinates.Coordinate system: The top-left corner of the image is the origin
(0, 0). The x-axis increases to the right, and the y-axis increases downward, in pixels. For example,[120, 80, 300, 450]means the region starts 120px from the left edge and 80px from the top edge, extending to 300px from the left and 450px from the top. Width =x2 - x1 = 180px, Height =y2 - y1 = 370px.scores: 1D array. Each element is a confidence score for the corresponding detection result, ranging from 0 to 1. Higher scores indicate greater model confidence.
Example result JSON:
{
"masks": [
[[0, 0, 1, ...], [0, 1, 1, ...], ...],
[[0, 0, 0, ...], [0, 0, 1, ...], ...]
],
"boxes": [
[120, 80, 300, 450],
[400, 200, 600, 500]
],
"scores": [0.95, 0.87]
}Truncated return example (not completed within 50s):
{
"success": true,
"status": "processing",
"task_id": "xxx",
"message": "Task is still processing (waited about 50 seconds). Please retry later or record this task_id for manual follow-up.",
"note": "The synchronous wait for this long-running task has been truncated."
}get_sam3_task_status
Query SAM3 segmentation task status. Used to poll for results when sam3_predict times out.
The returned
statusfield can be:processing,completed, orfailed. Ifstatusisprocessing, wait a few seconds and call this tool again.
Parameter | Type | Required |
| string | Yes |
Completed return:
{
"success": true,
"task_id": "xxx",
"status": "completed",
"result_url": "https://..."
}Processing return:
{
"success": true,
"task_id": "xxx",
"status": "processing",
"message": "Task is still processing, please check again later."
}Failed return:
{
"success": false,
"task_id": "xxx",
"status": "failed",
"error": "Task failed"
}FAQ
Agent reports timeout when calling tools?
This is the primary issue this project addresses. MCP Agents (such as Claude, Cursor) typically enforce a ~60-second timeout per tool call. If task processing exceeds this limit, the Agent will error and disconnect.
Solutions:
Prefer asynchronous tools: For video enhancement and other time-consuming tasks, always use
create_task+get_task_status. These tools return instantly on each call and will not trigger timeouts.Sync tool truncation mechanism:
enhance_video_synchas an internal 50-second truncation limit. If the task is not completed within 50 seconds, the tool proactively returns atask_idand instructs the Agent to useget_task_statusto follow up.SAM3 truncation mechanism:
sam3_predictdefaults to 25 polling attempts (~50 seconds). If the task is not completed, it returns a truncation notice indicating the task is still processing.Adjust SAM3 polling parameters (advanced): If you are confident that SAM3 tasks are usually fast (e.g., under 10 seconds), you can increase polling attempts via environment variable:
SAM3_POLL_MAX_ATTEMPTS=60But ensure the total wait time does not exceed your Agent's timeout limit.
Drag-and-drop attachment says file not found?
This is a known limitation of stdio MCP. When dragging or uploading an attachment through the Agent interface, the file path is usually not automatically passed to the MCP Server.
Solutions:
Provide the path simultaneously (recommended): After dragging the image, add the local absolute path in your message:
"Please analyze this image
D:\\photos\\cat.jpgand find the cat"Wait for auto-encoding: Claude may automatically encode the image as base64. If successful, no extra action is needed.
Reply to path inquiry: If Claude asks for the image path, simply reply with the local absolute path.
Is there a priority among the three input methods?
There is no strict priority. Claude will automatically choose the most appropriate method based on conversation context:
You provided a local path → uses
imagePathYou provided a web link → uses
imageUrlYou dragged an attachment without a path → tries
imageBase64
What image formats are supported?
Common formats: PNG, JPG, JPEG, BMP, WebP, etc. PNG or JPG is recommended.
What if URL image download fails?
Ensure the URL is publicly accessible, requiring no login, cookies, or signatures. If the image is on a service requiring authentication (e.g., private S3 Bucket, login-required image host), download it locally first and use imagePath.
What if the base64 image is too large?
If the image is very large (e.g., 4K resolution), the base64-encoded data will be very large and may slow transmission. Suggestions:
Use
imagePathinsteadOr compress the image before encoding
File Upload Notes
When type is "local":
File is read locally by the MCP Server
Uploaded directly to TOS object storage via pre-signed URL
Max file size: 100MB
Troubleshooting
"command not found: npx"
Install Node.js >= 18: https://nodejs.org/
"Error: --api-key argument or API_KEY environment variable is required"
Your API Key is missing. Double-check the env.API_KEY in your config.
MCP Server shows red/error in client
Check logs:
Claude Desktop macOS:
~/Library/Logs/Claude/mcp*.logClaude Desktop Windows:
%APPDATA%\Claude\logs\mcp*.logCursor: Output panel > MCP
"TOS upload failed"
Usually a signature mismatch. Ensure your IMAGE_API_BASE_URL (or its HTTP_API_BASE_URL fallback) and API_KEY are correct and active.
Global Install (Alternative)
If you prefer not using npx every time:
npm install -g @avclabs.ai/media-mcpThen use "command": "media-mcp" with "args": ["--api-key", "your-api-key"] in your config.
Development and Release
This package runs locally in the MCP client and is released through npm; it is not a remote Node daemon. The sibling media-mcp-api-http-server is live as the shared /enhance video/image/account owner, although its current production release only implements video routes; candidate code adds the image routes, durable prepare/dispatch outboxes, task-level credit idempotency, and separate image/video queues. The Portal is live and SAM3 remains an external production dependency. Real image AI/TOS E2E, production backend rollout, and SAM3 JSON health are still pending, so 0.3.0 must not be published yet. Before publishing, run:
npm ci
npm run release:verifySee the release guide for version synchronization, publish order, smoke tests, and the relationship with the portal/backend deployment.
License
MIT License - See LICENSE file for details
Available Tools
4 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(URL必须公网可访问,不支持需要登录或签名的链接) | |
| 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?
No annotations provided, so the description must carry full burden. It notes async behavior and TOS upload but omits side effects, permissions, failure modes, or rate limits. The description only partially discloses behavioral traits.
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 three bullet points and front-loaded purpose. Every sentence earns its place, but structure could be slightly improved with clearer differentiation from siblings.
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 input parameters well but lacks output schema explanation (e.g., task ID or status). With no annotations and multiple siblings, more context on post-creation steps would improve completeness.
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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description groups parameters and explains the two upload modes, but does not add new information beyond the schema's existing parameter 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 creates an async video enhancement task and distinguishes between two upload methods (URL and local). It uses specific verbs and resources, and is not a tautology.
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 when to use each upload type (URL vs local) but does not explicitly guide when to use this async tool over its sync sibling (enhance_video_sync) or other tools like get_task_status.
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(URL必须公网可访问,不支持需要登录或签名的链接) | |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'blocking wait for completion', explains the automatic upload of local files to TOS storage, and mentions polling parameters, giving good transparency. It does not mention side effects, but given the nature, none are expected.
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 well-structured with bullet points and clear categorization of upload methods and parameters. Every sentence serves a purpose, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.
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 the blocking nature, upload methods, and all parameters thoroughly. It lacks an explicit description of the return value, but given the synchronous nature, it likely returns the enhanced video. Overall, it is fairly complete for a tool without an output schema.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context beyond the schema, such as the automatic upload process for local files and that URLs must be publicly accessible. This extra information enhances understanding of parameter usage.
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's purpose: to enhance video synchronously, with a blocking wait. It details two upload methods (URL and local), distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle different operations like task creation or status checking.
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 the blocking nature, implicitly indicating when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like create_task (likely async) or provide when-not-to-use guidance, making usage guidelines less explicit.
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.
sam3_predictA
Analyze an image using the SAM3 segmentation API to generate inference results (masks, boxes, scores). The image can be provided in one of three ways:
imagePath: Absolute path of a local image file (e.g. C:\Users\xxx\photo.png). Use this when the user provides a local file path.
imageUrl: Publicly accessible URL of the image (e.g. https://example.com/photo.jpg). Use this when the user provides a web link.
imageBase64: Base64-encoded image data. Use this when the user uploads or drags-and-drops an image as an attachment and no local path is available. In this case, encode the image content as base64 and pass it via this parameter. If the user mentions an uploaded image but does not provide a path, URL, or base64 data, ask the user for the local absolute path. Prompt must be in English. If the user provides Chinese or other non-English text, translate it to English before calling this tool.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| imagePath | No | Absolute path of a local image file (e.g. C:\\Users\\xxx\\photo.png) | |
| imageUrl | No | Publicly accessible URL of the image to process | |
| imageBase64 | No | Base64-encoded image data. Use this when the image is provided as an attachment without a local path | |
| prompt | Yes | Text prompt for mask generation. Must be in English. If the user provides Chinese or other non-English text, translate it to English before calling this tool |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that it calls an external API and generates masks, boxes, scores. However, it lacks details on potential side effects, authentication, error handling, or rate limits. It does not contradict annotations.
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 well-structured with bullet points, front-loading the main purpose. Every sentence serves a purpose, explaining input methods and prompt requirements without redundancy. It is concise yet comprehensive.
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 what the tool does (segmentation analysis), how to provide input (three methods), and what outputs are generated (masks, boxes, scores). Even without an output schema, it gives sufficient information for an agent to use the tool correctly.
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?
Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant value by explaining usage contexts for each image parameter and specifying that the prompt must be in English, requiring translation if needed. This goes beyond 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's function: 'Analyze an image using the SAM3 segmentation API to generate inference results (masks, boxes, scores).' This specifies the verb (analyze), resource (image via SAM3 API), and output, effectively distinguishing it from siblings like create_task.
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 explicit guidance on when to use each image input method (imagePath, imageUrl, imageBase64) and includes instructions for handling non-English prompts. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives.
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.
4 tool updates
v0.1.0- First observed
create_task - First observed
enhance_video_sync - First observed
get_task_status - First observed
sam3_predict
TDQS
Scored across 4 tools
The first three tools are about video enhancement tasks with overlapping functionality (create_task and enhance_video_sync both appear to initiate enhancement), and the fourth tool (sam3_predict) is for image segmentation, a completely different domain. The descriptions are not clear enough to distinguish which tool to use for a given task, causing confusion.
Tool names partially follow a verb_noun pattern (create_task, get_task_status), but 'enhance_video_sync' is awkward and 'sam3_predict' mixes model name with verb, introducing inconsistency.
With 4 tools, the count is reasonable for a focused server, but the server actually combines two unrelated capabilities (video enhancement and image segmentation), making the scope unclear but the number itself is not extreme.
For video enhancement, there are create, sync enhance, and status query, but missing cancel, list, or delete operations. For image segmentation, only a single predict tool exists. The surface is incomplete for both domains.
Maintenance
Related MCP Connectors
MCP server for Wan AI video generation
MCP server for Google Veo AI video generation
MCP server for MiniMax H3 multimodal video generation
MCP server for Luma Dream Machine AI video generation
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceMCP server for 4K video generation using Google VEO 3.1 — text-to-video, image-to-video, video extension, and frame interpolation.1MIT
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceMCP server for generating, editing, and batch processing videos using xAI's Grok Imagine Video API, with support for text-to-video, image-to-video, and video editing via natural language prompts.438 npm1MIT
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceMCP server for AI-powered media generation: images, videos, audio, and upscaling using 99 AI models.6MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceAn MCP server enabling video processing via natural language: transcription with Whisper, segment cutting with FFmpeg, and file management.MIT