适用于Cline的高级模型上下文协议 (MCP) 服务器，可与 EverArt 的 AI 模型集成，生成矢量和光栅图像。该服务器提供强大的图像生成功能，并提供灵活的存储选项和格式转换功能。
矢量图形生成
使用 Recraft-Vector 模型创建 SVG 矢量图形
自动 SVG 优化
非常适合徽标、图标和可扩展图形
光栅图像生成
支持 PNG、JPEG 和 WebP 格式
多种AI模型，适合不同风格
高质量图像处理
灵活存储
自定义输出路径和文件名
自动目录创建
格式验证和扩展处理
Web 项目集成
Related MCP server: Gemini Image MCP
5000:FLUX1.1 ：标准质量，通用图像生成
9000:FLUX1.1-ultra ：超高品质，细节丰富的图像
6000:SD3.5 : 稳定扩散 3.5，适合多种风格
7000：Recraft-Real ：照片写实风格
8000：Recraft-Vector ：矢量艺术风格（SVG 输出）
克隆存储库：
git clone https://github.com/nickbaumann98/everart-forge-mcp.git
cd everart-forge-mcp安装依赖项：
npm install构建项目：
npm run build获取您的 EverArt API 密钥：
在EverArt注册
导航至您的帐户设置
创建或复制您的 API 密钥
将服务器添加到您的 Cline MCP 设置文件：
对于 VS 代码扩展：
编辑~/Library/Application Support/Code/User/globalStorage/saoudrizwan.claude-dev/settings/cline_mcp_settings.json ：
{
"mcpServers": {
"everart-forge": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["/absolute/path/to/everart-forge-mcp/build/index.js"],
"env": {
"EVERART_API_KEY": "your_api_key_here"
},
"disabled": false,
"autoApprove": []
}
}
}对于 Claude 桌面应用程序：
编辑~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json (macOS) 或适合您操作系统的位置
重新启动 Cline 以加载新的 MCP 服务器
配置完成后，您可以使用 Cline 生成带有如下提示的图像：
“使用 Recraft-Vector 模型生成 SVG 格式的简约科技徽标”
“使用 FLUX1.1-ultra 模型创建逼真的风景图像”
“为我的项目制作一个代表人工智能的矢量图标”
“将专业的公司徽标生成为 SVG 文件并将其保存到我的桌面”
服务器提供以下工具：
生成具有广泛自定义选项的图像：
Parameters:
- prompt (required): Text description of desired image
- model: Model ID (5000:FLUX1.1, 9000:FLUX1.1-ultra, 6000:SD3.5, 7000:Recraft-Real, 8000:Recraft-Vector)
- format: Output format (svg, png, jpg, webp)
- output_path: Custom output path for the image
- web_project_path: Path to web project root for proper asset organization
- project_type: Web project type (react, vue, html, next, etc.)
- asset_path: Subdirectory within the web project assets
- image_count: Number of images to generate (1-10)笔记：
SVG 格式仅适用于 Recraft-Vector (8000) 型号
8000 型号的默认格式为“svg”，其他型号的默认格式为“png”
您可以指定组合模型 ID（例如“8000:Recraft-Vector”）
列出服务器存储的所有先前生成的图像。
在默认图像查看器中打开特定图像：
Parameters:
- filename: Name of the image file to view错误：模型 ID 无效：请确保您使用的模型 ID 是受支持的模型 ID 之一（5000、6000、7000、8000、9000）
格式与模型不兼容：SVG 格式仅适用于 Recraft-Vector (8000) 模型
未找到图像：使用 list_images 工具查看可用图像
API 身份验证失败：请检查您的 EverArt API 密钥
图像未出现：检查文件权限和路径
MIT 许可证 - 详情请参阅 LICENSE 文件。
Generate images using EverArt Models, optimized for web development. Supports web project paths, responsive formats, and inline preview. Available models:
5000:FLUX1.1: Standard quality
9000:FLUX1.1-ultra: Ultra high quality
6000:SD3.5: Stable Diffusion 3.5
7000:Recraft-Real: Photorealistic style
8000:Recraft-Vector: Vector art style (SVG format)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| prompt | Yes | Text description of desired image | |
| model | No | Model ID (5000:FLUX1.1, 9000:FLUX1.1-ultra, 6000:SD3.5, 7000:Recraft-Real, 8000:Recraft-Vector) | 5000 |
| format | No | Output format (svg, png, jpg, webp). Note: Vector format (svg) is only available with Recraft-Vector (8000) model. | svg |
| output_path | No | Optional: Custom output path for the generated image. If not provided, image will be saved in the default storage directory. | |
| web_project_path | No | Path to web project root folder for storing images in appropriate asset directories. | |
| project_type | No | Web project type to determine appropriate asset directory structure (e.g., 'react', 'vue', 'html', 'next'). | |
| asset_path | No | Optional subdirectory within the web project's asset structure for storing generated images. | |
| image_count | No | Number of images to generate |
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 lists available models and hints at web project integration but fails to describe critical behaviors like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what happens when images are generated (e.g., saved to disk, returned as data). For a complex 8-parameter tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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 efficiently structured with a clear opening sentence and a bulleted list of models. However, the model list could be more concise (e.g., by grouping similar models), and some sentences like 'Supports web project paths, responsive formats, and inline preview' are vague and could be tightened.
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 tool's complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values (e.g., image URLs, file paths), error conditions, web development integration specifics, and behavioral constraints. For a generative tool with multiple parameters, this leaves significant gaps for an AI 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds some value by listing model options with quality/style notes, but it doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema (e.g., explaining 'web_project_path' integration or 'project_type' implications). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 generates images using EverArt Models and specifies it's optimized for web development, which provides a specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'list_images' or 'view_image' beyond the core generation function, preventing a perfect score.
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 'list_images' or 'view_image'. It mentions web development optimization but doesn't specify scenarios where this is preferred over other image-related tools or when not to use it, leaving usage context implied at best.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List all stored images
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
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 action ('List all stored images') but doesn't describe what 'List' entails—such as whether it returns metadata, thumbnails, or full images; if there's pagination or filtering; or any performance or rate-limiting considerations. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's 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?
The description 'List all stored images' is extremely concise—a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core action without any fluff, 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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal but insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'List' returns (e.g., a list of image IDs, metadata, or URLs), which is critical for a tool with no output schema. For a basic list operation, more context on the return format is needed to be complete.
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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't add parameter details beyond this, but since there are no parameters to explain, it doesn't need to compensate. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description doesn't contradict or add unnecessary information.
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 'List all stored images' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('stored images'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'view_image' (which might show a single image) or 'generate_image' (which creates new images), so it doesn't reach the highest score.
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 'view_image' or 'generate_image'. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual factors that would help an agent choose between these tools, leaving the usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Open a stored image in the default image viewer
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filename | Yes | Name of the image file to view |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool opens an image in a viewer, implying a read-only operation, but lacks details on behavioral traits such as whether it requires specific permissions, if it launches an external application, or any error handling (e.g., if the file doesn't exist). This leaves gaps for safe agent invocation.
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 purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, 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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimal but incomplete. It lacks context on usage guidelines, behavioral transparency (e.g., what happens if the file is missing), and doesn't leverage the absence of annotations to compensate, making it inadequate for safe agent operation.
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 adds no parameter semantics beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage and fully documents the single 'filename' parameter. This meets the baseline of 3, as the schema handles the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't provide additional context like file format support or path specifications.
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 ('Open') and resource ('stored image'), specifying it opens in the default image viewer. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'generate_image' (creates new images) or 'list_images' (lists existing images), which is a minor gap.
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., the image must already exist), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'generate_image' for creating images or 'list_images' for browsing available images.
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.
v1.0.0generate_imagelist_imagesview_imageScored across 3 tools
The three tools have clearly distinct purposes: generate_image creates new images, list_images enumerates stored images, and view_image opens a specific stored image. There is no overlap or ambiguity between these functions, making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool for each task.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case: generate_image, list_images, and view_image. This predictable naming scheme enhances readability and usability, with no deviations or mixed conventions.
With only three tools, the server feels thin for an image generation and management domain. While the tools cover basic operations (create, list, view), more advanced functionality like editing, deleting, or organizing images is missing, which could limit agent workflows in practice.
The tool surface is significantly incomplete for an image management server. There are notable gaps: no ability to delete, update, or organize images (e.g., tagging, moving), and no tools for managing the generation process (e.g., canceling jobs, checking status). This will likely cause agent failures when trying to perform common image-related tasks.
MCP server for Qwen Image 3 AI image generation
MCP server for Flux AI image generation
Generate AI images, video, music, and sound effects, and upscale them, from any MCP client.
MCP server for NanoBanana AI image generation and editing
