video-material-db
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type
@followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@video-material-dbSearch my video library for jokes about awkward first dates"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
Video Material DB (Video Material Semantic Database)
A local-first knowledge base for short-form video research and creation. It unifies videos, subtitles, and AI-structured analysis into PostgreSQL, and provides natural-language retrieval through a Web interface, REST API, and MCP tools. Media material and analysis data are stored by default in the user's own runtime environment.
Main Features
Import media from local files, folders, or public video links
Automatically scrape video lists of creators from platforms such as Douyin, TikTok, YouTube, and Bilibili
Automatically complete to video preprocessing, speech transcription, keyframe extraction, and visual analysis through:
Extract characters, scenes, shots, dialogue, story structure, punchlines (malloc), and adaptation suggestions
Use pgvector to build a semantic index and search videos, dialogue, and narrative elements in natural language
Manage media and background tasks through FastAPI Web interface
Front MCP into AI tools such as Codex
Support deduplication, asynchronous processing, failure retry, and batch export
Related MCP server: youtube-mcp
Use Cases
Short-video writers search for reference on plot, dialogue , jokes, plot twists, and camera shots
Content teams build a searchable video case library and creative knowledge base
Analyze popular creators' content structure, narrative pacing, and visual style
Look for reusable creative patterns in large volumes of reference videos
Provide AI assistants with structured, traceable video research material
Tech Composition
Python 3.11+
FastAPI
PostgreSQL + pgvector
MCP Server
ffmpeg / ffprobe
Qwen-compatible interfaces (ASR, visual analysis, and vector embeddings)
Quick Start
Full installation instructions are shown in INSTALL.md. media are stored by default in local ./data directory under the project.
python3 -m venv .venv
.venv/bin/pip install -e .
cp .env.example .envOnce the database is running, start the Web service and background analysis tasks:
.venv/bin/video-db-api
.venv/bin/video-db-workerOpen http://127.0.0.1:8000/ in your browser.
MCP Integration
codex mcp add video-material-db -- <仓库绝对路径>/.venv/bin/video-db-mcpThe available tools include add_video_url, add_locale_video, search_videos, search_dialogue, search_jokes, search_stroy_structure, and get_video_detail.
Data and Security
The public repository contains only generic application source code. .env, API keys, video files, database content, backups, machine-local paths, and personal data remain out of version control.
Available Tools
8 toolsadd_local_videoD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no 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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
add_video_urlD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no 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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
build_remake_contextD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| video_id | Yes |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no 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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_video_detailD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| video_id | Yes |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no 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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_dialogueD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no 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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_jokesD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no 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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_story_structureD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no 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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_videosD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no 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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
8 tool updates
v0.2.1- First observed
add_local_video - First observed
add_video_url - First observed
build_remake_context - First observed
get_video_detail - First observed
search_dialogue - First observed
search_jokes - First observed
search_story_structure - First observed
search_videos
TDQS
All tools have clearly distinct purposes. Adding via URL vs local file are distinct, and the various search tools target different content types (videos, dialogue, jokes, story structure), so there is no ambiguity in what each tool does.
All tool names follow the same verb_noun pattern in snake_case: add_, search_, get_, build_. This is fully consistent across the entire set.
8 tools is well-scoped for a video material database. The set covers ingestion (add), retrieval (search, get), and a specialized operation (build_remake_context) without unnecessary bloat.
The main workflows of adding, searching across content types, and retrieving details are covered. Minor gaps exist—no update/delete operations for videos and no general list all videos—but agents can work around these with the provided search tools.
Maintenance
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
Video analysis AI: transcripts, summaries, visual scenes/shots, clips, answers in natural language.
Video knowledge base for agents: search your library's transcripts, keyframes and on-screen text.
Edit video by talking to your AI — search footage, cut timelines, apply effects, add captions.
Understand your videos with Reka AI — search, ask questions, and extract insights.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables AI assistants to search through structured databases and unstructured content (documents, videos, files) using natural language queries with semantic understanding.MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables AI assistants to watch YouTube videos by extracting frames at scene changes and visual references, pairing each frame with the exact words spoken at that timestamp. Provides dense frame-transcript interleaving for any model.272MIT

VZT Video-Intelofficial
AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceSelf-hosted video intelligence pipeline that turns video into structured, citable, queryable JSON scene graphs, enabling AI assistants to analyze and search across video libraries without re-processing.161MIT- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables natural language search through personal video collections, returning AI-generated descriptions and direct URLs to relevant 30-second video clips.-
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/JimmyChin756/video-material-db'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server