Video Enhancement MCP Server
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| HTTP_API_KEY | Yes | API authentication key | |
| HTTP_API_BASE_URL | No | FastAPI HTTP Server address | https://mcp.luluhero.com |
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {
"listChanged": true
} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| create_taskA | 创建视频增强任务(异步) 支持两种上传方式:
参数说明:
|
| get_task_statusA | 查询视频增强任务状态 |
| enhance_video_syncB | 同步增强视频(阻塞等待完成) 支持两种上传方式:
参数说明:
|
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 3 tools
The tool descriptions are extremely confusing and overlapping. The 'create_task' tool appears to be described twice with different parameter sets (first mentioning 'enhance_video_sync', then mentioning 'poll_interval', 'timeout', and 'get_task_status'), making it unclear if these are separate tools or one poorly described tool. There's no clear distinction between what each tool does, and the descriptions suggest they might all be part of the same functionality.
Only one tool name 'create_task' is provided, but the description suggests multiple tools or functionalities. The naming is chaotic with no discernible pattern, and the description mixes parameter names with what appear to be additional tool names ('get_task_status'), creating complete inconsistency.
The server claims 3 tools but only lists one tool name ('create_task'). The description is so poorly structured that it's impossible to determine what the actual tools are. For a video enhancement server, 3 tools could be appropriate, but the actual implementation appears to be a single tool with confusing documentation.
For a video enhancement server, we would expect tools for creating tasks, checking status, and retrieving results. The description suggests some of these functionalities exist but they're all muddled together in one tool description. There's no clear separation of operations, making the surface appear severely incomplete despite potentially having the necessary functionality buried in the confusing documentation.