Placid.app APIと統合するためのMCPサーバー実装。このサーバーは、モデルコンテキストプロトコル（MCP）を介してテンプレートの一覧表示や画像・動画生成を行うツールを提供します。
フィルタリングオプション付きの利用可能な Placid テンプレートを一覧表示します
テンプレートと動的コンテンツを使用して画像とビデオを生成する
安全なAPIトークン管理
エラー処理と検証
型安全な実装
Related MCP server: Strapi MCP Server
nodejs.orgから Node.js (バージョン 18 以上) と npm をインストールします。
インストールを確認します:
node --version
npm --version始める最も簡単な方法は、すべてを自動的に構成する Smithery を使用することです。
npx -y @smithery/cli install @felores/placid-mcp-server --client claude手動で設定したい場合は、Claude Desktop または Cline の設定に以下を追加します。
{
"mcpServers": {
"placid": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["@felores/placid-mcp-server"],
"env": {
"PLACID_API_TOKEN": "your-api-token"
}
}
}
}Placid.appアカウントにログインしてください
設定 > API へ移動
「APIトークンを作成」をクリックします
トークンに名前を付けます（例：「MCP Server」）
生成されたトークンをコピーする
上記のようにトークンを設定に追加します
# Run in development mode with hot reload
npm run dev
# Run tests
npm test利用可能なPlacidテンプレートの一覧とフィルタリングオプションが表示されます。各テンプレートには、タイトル、ID、プレビュー画像のURL、利用可能なレイヤー、タグが含まれます。
collection_id (オプション): コレクションIDでテンプレートをフィルタリングします
custom_data （オプション）: カスタム参照データでフィルタリング
tags (オプション): テンプレートをフィルタリングするタグの配列
それぞれ次の内容を含むテンプレートの配列を返します。
uuid : テンプレートの一意の識別子
title : テンプレート名
thumbnail : プレビュー画像のURL（利用可能な場合）
layers : 利用可能なレイヤーの名前とタイプの配列
tags : テンプレートタグの配列
Placidテンプレートと動画、画像、テキストなどの動的コンテンツを組み合わせて動画を生成します。処理時間が60秒を超える長い動画の場合は、Placidダッシュボードでステータスを確認できるジョブIDが発行されます。
template_id (必須): 使用するテンプレートのUUID
layers （必須）: テンプレート レイヤーの動的コンテンツを含むオブジェクト
ビデオレイヤーの場合: { "layerName": { "video": "https://video-url.com" } }
画像レイヤーの場合: { "layerName": { "image": "https://image-url.com" } }
テキストレイヤーの場合: { "layerName": { "text": "Your content" } }
audio （オプション）: mp3オーディオファイルへのURL
audio_duration （オプション）: オーディオをビデオの長さに合わせてトリミングするには「auto」に設定します
audio_trim_start （オプション）：トリム開始点のタイムスタンプ（例：'00:00:45'または'00:00:45.25'）
audio_trim_end （オプション）：トリム終了点のタイムスタンプ（例：'00:00:55'または'00:00:55.25'）
次の内容を含むオブジェクトを返します:
status : 現在のステータス ("finished"、"queued"、または "error")
video_url : 生成されたビデオをダウンロードするためのURL（ステータスが「完了」の場合）
job_id : Placidダッシュボードでステータスを確認するためのID（長い動画の場合）
{
"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"
}Placid テンプレートとテキストや画像などの動的コンテンツを組み合わせて静的画像を生成します。
template_id (必須): 使用するテンプレートのUUID
layers （必須）: テンプレート レイヤーの動的コンテンツを含むオブジェクト
テキストレイヤーの場合: { "layerName": { "text": "Your content" } }
画像レイヤーの場合: { "layerName": { "image": "https://image-url.com" } }
次の内容を含むオブジェクトを返します:
status : 完了すると「完了」
image_url : 生成された画像をダウンロードするためのURL
{
"template_id": "template-uuid",
"layers": {
"headline": { "text": "Welcome to My App" },
"background": { "image": "https://example.com/bg.jpg" }
}
}Placid API の詳細については、 Placid API ドキュメントをご覧ください。
マサチューセッツ工科大学
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.