Implementación de un servidor MCP para la integración con la API de Placid.app. Este servidor proporciona herramientas para listar plantillas y generar imágenes y vídeos mediante el Protocolo de Contexto de Modelo.
Lista de plantillas de Placid disponibles con opciones de filtrado
Genera imágenes y vídeos usando plantillas y contenido dinámico
Gestión segura de tokens API
Manejo de errores y validación
Implementación de tipo seguro
Related MCP server: Strapi MCP Server
Instale Node.js (versión 18 o superior) y npm desde nodejs.org
Verificar la instalación:
node --version
npm --versionLa forma más sencilla de comenzar es usar Smithery, que configurará todo automáticamente para usted:
npx -y @smithery/cli install @felores/placid-mcp-server --client claudeSi prefiere configurarlo manualmente, agregue esto a su configuración de Claude Desktop o Cline:
{
"mcpServers": {
"placid": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["@felores/placid-mcp-server"],
"env": {
"PLACID_API_TOKEN": "your-api-token"
}
}
}
}Inicie sesión en su cuenta de Placid.app
Vaya a Configuración > API
Haga clic en "Crear token de API"
Dale un nombre a tu token (por ejemplo, "Servidor MCP")
Copiar el token generado
Agregue el token a su configuración como se muestra arriba
# Run in development mode with hot reload
npm run dev
# Run tests
npm testLista las plantillas de Placid disponibles con opciones de filtrado. Cada plantilla incluye su título, ID, URL de la imagen de vista previa, capas disponibles y etiquetas.
collection_id (opcional): Filtrar plantillas por ID de colección
custom_data (opcional): Filtrar por datos de referencia personalizados
tags (opcional): Matriz de etiquetas para filtrar plantillas por
Devuelve una matriz de plantillas, cada una de las cuales contiene:
uuid : Identificador único para la plantilla
title : Nombre de la plantilla
thumbnail : URL de la imagen de vista previa (si está disponible)
layers : Matriz de capas disponibles con sus nombres y tipos
tags : Matriz de etiquetas de plantilla
Genera videos combinando plantillas de Placid con contenido dinámico como videos, imágenes y texto. Para videos más largos (más de 60 segundos de tiempo de procesamiento), recibirás un ID de trabajo para consultar el estado en tu panel de Placid.
template_id (obligatorio): UUID de la plantilla a utilizar
layers (obligatorio): objeto que contiene contenido dinámico para capas de plantilla
Para capas de vídeo: { "layerName": { "video": "https://video-url.com" } }
Para capas de imagen: { "layerName": { "image": "https://image-url.com" } }
Para capas de texto: { "layerName": { "text": "Your content" } }
audio (opcional): URL a un archivo de audio mp3
audio_duration (opcional): Establézcalo en 'automático' para recortar el audio a la duración del video
audio_trim_start (opcional): marca de tiempo del punto de inicio del recorte (por ejemplo, '00:00:45' o '00:00:45.25')
audio_trim_end (opcional): marca de tiempo del punto final del recorte (por ejemplo, '00:00:55' o '00:00:55.25')
Devuelve un objeto que contiene:
status : Estado actual ("terminado", "en cola" o "error")
video_url : URL para descargar el vídeo generado (cuando el estado es "terminado")
job_id : ID para verificar el estado en el panel de Placid (para videos más largos)
{
"template_id": "template-uuid",
"layers": {
"MEDIA": { "video": "https://example.com/video.mp4" },
"PHOTO": { "image": "https://example.com/photo.jpg" },
"LOGO": { "image": "https://example.com/logo.png" },
"HEADLINE": { "text": "My Video Title" }
},
"audio": "https://example.com/background.mp3",
"audio_duration": "auto"
}Genere imágenes estáticas combinando plantillas Placid con contenido dinámico como texto e imágenes.
template_id (obligatorio): UUID de la plantilla a utilizar
layers (obligatorio): objeto que contiene contenido dinámico para capas de plantilla
Para capas de texto: { "layerName": { "text": "Your content" } }
Para capas de imagen: { "layerName": { "image": "https://image-url.com" } }
Devuelve un objeto que contiene:
status : "terminado" cuando esté completo
image_url : URL para descargar la imagen generada
{
"template_id": "template-uuid",
"layers": {
"headline": { "text": "Welcome to My App" },
"background": { "image": "https://example.com/bg.jpg" }
}
}Para obtener información más detallada sobre la API de Placid, visita la Documentación de la API de Placid .
Instituto Tecnológico de Massachusetts (MIT)
Generate an image using a template and provided assets
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| template_id | Yes | UUID of the template to use | |
| layers | Yes | Key-value pairs for dynamic content. Keys must match template layer names. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool generates an image, implying a write operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, output format (e.g., image URL or binary data), error handling, or whether it's idempotent. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely involves external processing.
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 function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Generate an image') and avoids redundancy, making it easy for an agent 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 complexity (2 parameters with nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address the output (what is returned, e.g., an image URL or file), error conditions, or behavioral traits like side effects. For a tool that generates content, this lack of context could lead to incorrect usage by an agent.
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 description mentions 'template and provided assets', which loosely maps to the two parameters (template_id and layers), but adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema. With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents parameters thoroughly (e.g., template_id as a UUID, layers as key-value pairs for dynamic content). The description doesn't explain the purpose of layers or provide examples, so it 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 ('Generate an image') and the mechanism ('using a template and provided assets'), which distinguishes it from the sibling 'placid_generate_video' that presumably generates videos. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'placid_list_templates' beyond the verb 'generate' vs 'list', which is somewhat implied but not stated.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a template ID from 'placid_list_templates'), when not to use it, or how it differs from 'placid_generate_video' beyond the output type. This leaves the agent to infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Generate a video using one or more templates and provided assets. Every 10 seconds of video uses 10 credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| template_id | Yes | UUID of the template to use | |
| layers | Yes | Key-value pairs for dynamic content. Keys must match template layer names. | |
| audio | No | URL of mp3 audio file for this video | |
| audio_duration | No | Set to 'auto' to trim audio to video length | |
| audio_trim_start | No | Timestamp of the trim start point (e.g. '00:00:45' or '00:00:45.25') | |
| audio_trim_end | No | Timestamp of the trim end point (e.g. '00:00:55' or '00:00:55.25') |
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 adds valuable context about credit consumption ('Every 10 seconds of video uses 10 credits'), which is a key behavioral trait not evident from the schema. However, it doesn't mention other important behaviors like processing time, error conditions, or what happens when invalid assets are provided.
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 extremely concise with just two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the second adds crucial behavioral context about credit usage. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and the information is front-loaded effectively.
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 video generation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and cost information but lacks important context. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (no output schema), doesn't mention authentication requirements, and provides minimal guidance on usage. The credit information is helpful but insufficient for full contextual understanding.
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%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.
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 ('Generate a video') and resources involved ('using one or more templates and provided assets'), which provides a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'placid_generate_image' or 'placid_list_templates' beyond the obvious video vs. image distinction.
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 'placid_generate_image' or 'placid_list_templates'. It mentions credit usage ('Every 10 seconds of video uses 10 credits') which could imply cost considerations, but offers no explicit when/when-not instructions or comparison to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get a list of available Placid templates with optional filtering. Each template includes its title, ID, preview image URL, available layers, and tags.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| collection_id | No | Optional: Filter templates by collection ID | |
| custom_data | No | Optional: Filter by custom reference data | |
| tags | No | Optional: Filter templates by tags |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions optional filtering and the data included in each template, but fails to describe critical behaviors such as pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or whether the list is exhaustive. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with an external API.
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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, optional features, and output details without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core action.
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 does not cover behavioral aspects like response format, pagination, or error cases, nor does it provide enough context for an agent to fully understand how to use this tool effectively in a real-world scenario, especially as a read operation with potential API constraints.
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%, so the schema already documents all three optional parameters (collection_id, custom_data, tags) with their purposes. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or interaction effects, meeting 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 verb ('Get a list') and resource ('available Placid templates'), specifying what data is included (title, ID, preview image URL, layers, tags). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on listing templates rather than generating images/videos, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.
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 implies usage for retrieving templates with optional filtering, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (like placid_generate_image/video) or any prerequisites. The context is clear but lacks comparative or exclusionary guidance.
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.
v1.7.0placid_generate_imageplacid_generate_videoplacid_list_templatesScored across 3 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: placid_generate_image for images, placid_generate_video for videos, and placid_list_templates for listing templates. There is no overlap in functionality, making tool selection straightforward for an agent.
All tool names follow a consistent 'placid_verb_noun' pattern with snake_case, using descriptive verbs like 'generate' and 'list'. This uniformity enhances readability and predictability across the toolset.
With only 3 tools, the server feels somewhat thin for a media generation domain, as it lacks operations like updating or deleting generated content, or managing assets. However, it covers basic generation and listing functions, making it borderline but functional.
The toolset provides core generation and listing capabilities but has notable gaps, such as no tools for updating templates, deleting generated media, or managing credits. This could limit agent workflows, though basic operations are covered.
A Model Context Protocol server for Wix AI tools
Model Context Protocol server for the Apideck Unified API. Connect any MCP-compatible agent framework to 100+ accounting systems, HRIS platforms, file storage providers, and more through one integration. More information https://www.apideck.com/mcp-server
A comprehensive Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that enables AI assistants to interact with yo…
MCP server for secureFlows: token-free URL builders and integration-linting tools for AI agents.