Placid.app API와 통합하기 위한 MCP 서버 구현입니다. 이 서버는 모델 컨텍스트 프로토콜(MCP)을 통해 템플릿을 나열하고 이미지와 비디오를 생성하는 도구를 제공합니다.
필터링 옵션을 사용하여 사용 가능한 Placid 템플릿을 나열합니다.
템플릿과 동적 콘텐츠를 사용하여 이미지와 비디오를 생성합니다.
안전한 API 토큰 관리
오류 처리 및 검증
유형 안전 구현
Related MCP server: Strapi MCP Server
nodejs.org 에서 Node.js(버전 18 이상)와 npm을 설치하세요.
설치 확인:
지엑스피1
가장 쉬운 시작 방법은 Smithery를 사용하는 것입니다. Smithery는 모든 것을 자동으로 구성해 줍니다.
npx -y @smithery/cli install @felores/placid-mcp-server --client claude수동으로 구성하려면 Claude Desktop 또는 Cline 설정에 다음을 추가하세요.
{
"mcpServers": {
"placid": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["@felores/placid-mcp-server"],
"env": {
"PLACID_API_TOKEN": "your-api-token"
}
}
}
}Placid.app 계정에 로그인하세요
설정 > API로 이동하세요
"API 토큰 생성"을 클릭하세요
토큰에 이름을 지정하세요(예: "MCP 서버")
생성된 토큰을 복사하세요
위에 표시된 대로 구성에 토큰을 추가하세요.
# Run in development mode with hot reload
npm run dev
# Run tests
npm test사용 가능한 Placid 템플릿을 필터링 옵션과 함께 나열합니다. 각 템플릿에는 제목, ID, 미리보기 이미지 URL, 사용 가능한 레이어 및 태그가 포함되어 있습니다.
collection_id (선택 사항): 컬렉션 ID로 템플릿 필터링
custom_data (선택 사항): 사용자 정의 참조 데이터로 필터링
tags (선택 사항): 템플릿을 필터링할 태그 배열
각 템플릿에 다음이 포함된 배열을 반환합니다.
uuid : 템플릿의 고유 식별자
title : 템플릿 이름
thumbnail : 미리보기 이미지 URL(있는 경우)
layers : 이름과 유형이 있는 사용 가능한 레이어 배열
tags : 템플릿 태그 배열
플래시드 템플릿과 비디오, 이미지, 텍스트 등의 동적 콘텐츠를 결합하여 비디오를 제작하세요. 처리 시간이 60초를 초과하는 긴 비디오의 경우, 플래시드 대시보드에서 작업 상태를 확인할 수 있는 작업 ID가 제공됩니다.
template_id (필수): 사용할 템플릿의 UUID
layers (필수): 템플릿 레이어에 대한 동적 콘텐츠를 포함하는 객체
비디오 레이어의 경우: { "layerName": { "video": "https://video-url.com" } }
이미지 레이어의 경우: { "layerName": { "image": "https://image-url.com" } }
텍스트 레이어의 경우: { "layerName": { "text": "Your content" } }
audio (선택 사항): mp3 오디오 파일의 URL
audio_duration (선택 사항): 오디오를 비디오 길이에 맞게 트리밍하려면 'auto'로 설정합니다.
audio_trim_start (선택 사항): 트림 시작 지점의 타임스탬프(예: '00:00:45' 또는 '00:00:45.25')
audio_trim_end (선택 사항): 트림 종료 지점의 타임스탬프(예: '00:00:55' 또는 '00:00:55.25')
다음을 포함하는 객체를 반환합니다.
status : 현재 상태("완료", "대기 중" 또는 "오류")
video_url : 생성된 비디오를 다운로드할 URL(상태가 "완료"일 때)
job_id : Placid 대시보드에서 상태를 확인하기 위한 ID(긴 영상의 경우)
{
"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 템플릿을 텍스트와 이미지와 같은 동적 콘텐츠와 결합하여 정적 이미지를 생성합니다.
template_id (필수): 사용할 템플릿의 UUID
layers (필수): 템플릿 레이어에 대한 동적 콘텐츠를 포함하는 객체
텍스트 레이어의 경우: { "layerName": { "text": "Your content" } }
이미지 레이어의 경우: { "layerName": { "image": "https://image-url.com" } }
다음을 포함하는 객체를 반환합니다.
status : 완료되면 "완료"
image_url : 생성된 이미지를 다운로드할 URL
{
"template_id": "template-uuid",
"layers": {
"headline": { "text": "Welcome to My App" },
"background": { "image": "https://example.com/bg.jpg" }
}
}Placid API에 대한 자세한 내용은 Placid API 문서를 참조하세요.
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.