Skip to main content
Glama
enesjakozh
felores

Cloudinary MCP Server

by felores
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

Cloudinary MCP 服务器

该 MCP 服务器提供通过 Claude Desktop 和兼容的 MCP 客户端将图像和视频上传到 Cloudinary 的工具。

安装

要求：Node.js

  1. 从nodejs.org安装 Node.js（版本 18 或更高版本）和 npm

  2. 验证安装：

    node --version
npm --version

使用 npx 安装（推荐）

  1. 导航到 Claude 配置目录：

    • Windows： C:\Users\NAME\AppData\Roaming\Claude

    • macOS： ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/

    您还可以在 Claude Desktop 应用程序中找到这些目录：Claude Desktop > 设置 > 开发人员 > 编辑配置

  2. 将以下配置添加到您的 MCP 设置文件：

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "cloudinary": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["@felores/cloudinary-mcp-server@latest"],
      "env": {
        "CLOUDINARY_CLOUD_NAME": "your_cloud_name",
        "CLOUDINARY_API_KEY": "your_api_key",
        "CLOUDINARY_API_SECRET": "your_api_secret"
      }
    }
  }
}

  1. 确保使用Cloudinary 控制台中的 Cloudinary 凭据替换环境变量。

开发人员安装

如果您想修改服务器或参与开发：

  1. 克隆存储库：

git clone https://github.com/felores/cloudinary-mcp-server.git
cd cloudinary-mcp-server

  1. 安装依赖项并构建：

npm install
npm run build

Related MCP server: Image Analysis MCP Server

设置说明

  1. 首先，确保您拥有 Cloudinary 帐户并从Cloudinary 控制台获取您的凭据：

    • 云名称

    • API 密钥

    • API 秘密

  2. 将服务器配置添加到您的 Claude/Cline MCP 设置文件中：

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "cloudinary": {
      "command": "node",
      "args": ["c:/path/to/cloudinary-mcp-server/dist/index.js"],
      "env": {
        "CLOUDINARY_CLOUD_NAME": "your_cloud_name",
        "CLOUDINARY_API_KEY": "your_api_key",
        "CLOUDINARY_API_SECRET": "your_api_secret"
      }
    }
  }
}

对于 Claude 桌面应用程序，请在适合您的操作系统的位置编辑配置文件。

  1. 安装依赖项并构建服务器：

npm install
npm run build

可用工具

上传

将图像和视频上传到 Cloudinary。

参数：

  • file （必需）：要上传的文件路径、URL 或 base64 数据 URI

  • resource_type （可选）：资源类型（“图像”、“视频”或“原始”）

  • public_id （可选）：已上传资产的自定义公共 ID

  • overwrite （可选）：是否覆盖具有相同公共 ID 的现有资产

  • tags （可选）：分配给已上传资产的标签数组

Claude/Cline 中的示例用法：

use_mcp_tool({
  server_name: "cloudinary",
  tool_name: "upload",
  arguments: {
    file: "path/to/image.jpg",
    resource_type: "image",
    public_id: "my-custom-id"
  }
});

Available Tools

1 tool
uploadB

Upload media (images/videos) to Cloudinary. For large files, the upload is processed in chunks and returns a streaming response. The uploaded asset will be available at:

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fileYesPath to file, URL, or base64 data URI to upload
resource_typeNoType of resource to upload. For videos, the upload will return a streaming response as it processes in chunks.
public_idNoPublic ID to assign to the uploaded asset. This will be used in the final URL. If not provided, Cloudinary will generate one.
overwriteNoWhether to overwrite existing assets with the same public ID
tagsNoTags to assign to the uploaded asset

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that uploads are processed in chunks for large files and returns a streaming response, adding useful behavioral context. However, it misses critical details like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what the response contains, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. The URL details are relevant but slightly verbose; every sentence earns its place by explaining outcomes, though it could be more streamlined for clarity.

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?

Given 5 parameters, 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is moderately complete. It covers the upload process and resulting URLs but lacks details on response format, error cases, or authentication, making it adequate but with clear gaps for a tool that performs mutations.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it clarifies the URL format for uploaded assets, which relates to public_id and resource_type, but doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional semantics for the 5 parameters.

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 uploads media (images/videos) to Cloudinary, specifying the verb 'upload' and resource 'media to Cloudinary'. However, it doesn't distinguish from any siblings (none exist) and could be more specific about the 'raw' resource_type mentioned in the schema.

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 implies usage for uploading media to Cloudinary, mentioning large files use chunked processing, but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, alternatives, or exclusions. Without siblings, differentiation isn't needed, but it lacks context like prerequisites or typical scenarios.

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.

  1. 1 tool update
    • First observedupload
Deploy Server
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Scored across 1 tool

Disambiguation5/5

With only one tool, there is no possibility for ambiguity or overlap between tools. The 'upload' tool has a clear, singular purpose of uploading media to Cloudinary, making it impossible for an agent to misselect among multiple options.

Naming Consistency5/5

Since there is only one tool named 'upload', it inherently follows a consistent naming pattern. There are no other tools to compare against, so no inconsistencies can arise in verb style, case conventions, or other naming aspects.

Tool Count2/5

A single tool is too few for a Cloudinary server, which typically handles a wide range of media operations like upload, delete, transform, list, and fetch. This minimal set severely limits functionality and will likely cause agent failures due to missing essential operations for the domain.

Completeness1/5

The tool set is severely incomplete for a Cloudinary media management server. It only provides upload functionality, with glaring gaps such as no delete, update, list, search, or transformation tools. This makes it impossible for agents to perform basic CRUD or lifecycle operations in the domain.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessUnresponsive

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

Appeared in Searches