Nexbidofficial
A
licenseNot graded
qualityD
maintenanceAgentic commerce infrastructure for AI agents. MCP-native product discovery, contextual ad matching, and purchase facilitation with European privacy compliance (nDSG/GDPR).
MIT
PixelVault
by rsweeting1
pixelvault-mcp
MCP server for PixelVault — AI-native marketplace for pre-cleared licensed assets.
Install
Add to your Claude Desktop config:
{
"mcpServers": {
"pixelvault": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "pixelvault-mcp"]
}
}
}Or run directly:
npx pixelvault-mcpRelated MCP server: webfetch
Tools
search_assets
Search PixelVault's database of pre-cleared AI-generated assets using a natural language brief. Returns a ranked shortlist with compliance status and rationale for each match.
get_asset_details
Retrieve full metadata and compliance documentation for a specific asset by ID.
generate_usage_agreement
Generate a completed usage agreement draft based on your project parameters (usage type, territory, duration, platform).
About
PixelVault is a compliance-cleared AI asset marketplace. Every asset is sourced from licensed AI platforms (Adobe Firefly, Moonvalley) and pre-cleared for commercial use. The MCP server gives Claude agents native access to search, evaluate, and license assets without leaving your workflow.
npm:
pixelvault-mcp
License
MIT
Available Tools
3 toolsgenerate_usage_agreementA
Generate a usage agreement document for approved PixelVault assets. Call after human approval of a shortlist.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asset_ids | Yes | Approved asset IDs. | |
| project_title | Yes | Production or project title. | |
| production_company | Yes | Production company name. | |
| distribution_platform | Yes | Distribution platforms (e.g. Netflix, Broadcast). | |
| territory | Yes | Distribution territory. | |
| air_date | No | Anticipated air date (YYYY-MM-DD). | |
| license_type | Yes | License type. |
TDQS
A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond generation, such as side effects, idempotency, or output format. This is a significant gap for a mutation-like 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 a single sentence plus a usage hint, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it could be slightly more structured to include expected output, but overall it's efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a generation tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output, success/failure indicators, or any prerequisites beyond 'approved' assets.
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?
The input schema describes all 7 parameters with coverage of 100%, so the schema carries the meaning. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'generate', the resource 'usage agreement document', and the context 'for approved PixelVault assets'. It distinguishes well from sibling tools (get_asset_details, search_assets) which focus on retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives explicit when-to-use: 'Call after human approval of a shortlist.' It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, though siblings are clearly different.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_asset_detailsB
Get full metadata and compliance documentation for a specific PixelVault asset by ID.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asset_id | Yes | The asset ID returned by search_assets. |
TDQS
B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description states it's a read operation but doesn't disclose potential costs, required permissions, error behavior, or rate limits. Lacks details beyond basic purpose.
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?
Single sentence, 13 words, no fluff. Efficient but slightly terse; could include more context without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, and description doesn't outline what 'full metadata and compliance documentation' includes. Agents need more behavioral guidance for a tool that presumably returns complex data.
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 provides a clear description for the sole parameter 'asset_id' (returned by search_assets). Tool description adds no extra meaning beyond 'by ID', so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Get full metadata and compliance documentation for a specific PixelVault asset by ID.' Distinguishes from siblings: search_assets returns lists, generate_usage_agreement creates documents.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or alternatives. Implies use with an asset ID, but doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., need to call search_assets first) or when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_assetsA
Search PixelVault for pre-cleared, commercially licensed AI-generated assets matched to a creative brief. Every asset is sourced from licensed AI platforms (Adobe Firefly, Moonvalley) and carries a compliance-cleared status. Returns a ranked shortlist with compliance status, format, platform, and rationale.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| brief | Yes | Natural language description of the visual asset needed. | |
| license_type | No | License type required. Auto-detected from brief if omitted. | |
| format | No | Asset format filter. | |
| vertical | No | Vertical: post production, editorial, or ecommerce. | |
| territory | No | Distribution territory (e.g. Worldwide, US Only). |
TDQS
A4/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses asset sourcing, compliance status, and output structure (ranked shortlist with specific fields). Lacks details on limitations, pagination, or rate limits, but sufficient for a search tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, second sentence adds output details. No wasted words, efficient and clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 5-parameter search tool with no output schema, description covers source, compliance, and output fields. Missing details on ranking criteria and empty results handling, but still fairly complete.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds context about matching to a brief and output fields, but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool searches for pre-cleared, commercially licensed AI-generated assets matched to a creative brief, specifies source platforms and output fields. Distinguishes well from sibling tools (generate_usage_agreement, get_asset_details).
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implicitly clear from purpose, but lacks when-not or alternative tool references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
TDQS
A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a distinct purpose: search assets, get details, and generate agreement. No overlap.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case, e.g., search_assets, get_asset_details, generate_usage_agreement.
Tool Count5/5
Three tools are well-scoped for the asset management workflow; each tool serves a clear role without unnecessary bulk.
Completeness5/5
The tools cover the full lifecycle for the stated purpose: search, retrieve details, and generate an agreement. No missing operations.
Maintenance
ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessSyncing
Resources
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
Looking for Admin?
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Related MCP Connectors
Licensed, rights-cleared content for AI agents - verifiable license keys + EU AI Act attestation.
AI Visibility and Content Intelligence tools for Claude and MCP-compatible agents.
Brand-safe MCP for AI agents to create editable, on-brand graphics and automate variants.
Build and manage AI-native customer support agents from Claude or any MCP client.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceLicense-first federated image search for AI agents and humans. Exposes MCP tools for concise, attribution-aware image discovery, license probing, and guarded downloads across open, platform, and editorial sources.7453MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceAffiliate product search for AI agents. Indexes structured merchant feeds — real prices, live stock, affiliate links built in. Works with any MCP client.MIT
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceEnables AI agents to search, license, and pay for rights-clean music per use, returning a verifiable license certificate.5MIT
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/rsweeting1/pixelvault-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server