What can you do with this server?

A focused MCP server for generating and editing images using Seedream AI models, with support for task management and pricing lookups. * Generate images from text (text_to_image): Submit a text prompt to one of three Seedream text-to-image models (seedream-4.5, seedream-5-lite, seedream-v4) and receive output image URLs. * Edit images (edit_image): Submit source image URLs to a Seedream edit model to generate edited outputs. * Configurable outputs: Set aspect ratio, output count (1–6), quality (basic/high), and resolution (1k/2k/4k) for both workflows. * Wait or fire-and-forget: Use the wait parameter to poll until completion and get results immediately, or submit asynchronously and check back later. * Poll task status (get_task): Fetch the current status and result payload of a previously created task using its task ID. * Check pricing (check_pricing): Look up current pricing for any Seedream model and endpoint — no API key required, useful for cost estimation.

How do I use seedream-mcp?

1. Click on "Install Server". 2. Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state. 3. In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@seedream-mcp generate an image of a cat wearing a space helmet" 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.

seedream-mcp

by runapi-ai

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Remote

Why This Package?

@runapi.ai/seedream-mcp is a focused Model Context Protocol server for the Seedream model line on RunAPI. It gives MCP-compatible assistants direct access to 3 endpoints and 9 model variants without loading the full RunAPI catalog.

Use this per-model server when an agent should stay scoped to Seedream. Use @runapi.ai/mcp when one assistant should discover every RunAPI model line.

Related MCP server: grok-imagine-mcp

Install

Add it to Claude Code:

claude mcp add seedream -s user -- npx -y @runapi.ai/seedream-mcp

Use project scope when the server should be shared with a repository:

claude mcp add seedream -s project -- npx -y @runapi.ai/seedream-mcp

Codex, Cursor, Windsurf, VS Code, Roo Code, and other MCP hosts can use the same stdio command:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "seedream": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "@runapi.ai/seedream-mcp"]
    }
  }
}

check_pricing works before sign-in. For task creation and status polling, ask your assistant to call the login tool. It opens a browser login and saves credentials to ~/.config/runapi/config.json, the same file used by runapi login. Headless and CI hosts can still set RUNAPI_API_KEY before starting the MCP host.

Ready-made examples are in examples/ for Claude, Cursor, Windsurf, VS Code, and Roo Code.

Tools

Tool	Auth	Purpose
`decompose_layers`	Yes	Create a Seedream decompose layers task and optionally wait for a terminal status. Returns the task id, status, and output URLs.
`edit_image`	Yes	Create a Seedream edit image task and optionally wait for a terminal status. Returns the task id, status, and output URLs.
`text_to_image`	Yes	Create a Seedream text to image task and optionally wait for a terminal status. Returns the task id, status, and output URLs.
`get_task`	Yes	Fetch the current status and latest payload for an existing task.
`check_pricing`	No	Look up current pricing for a Seedream model and endpoint.

Models

Seedream covers 9 model variants across 3 endpoints. Each tool accepts the models listed for it:

Tool	Models
`decompose_layers`	`seedream-5-pro-layer-decomposition`
`edit_image`	`seedream-4.5-edit`, `seedream-5-lite-edit`, `seedream-5-pro-edit`, `seedream-v4-edit`
`text_to_image`	`seedream-4.5-text-to-image`, `seedream-5-lite-text-to-image`, `seedream-5-pro-text-to-image`, `seedream-v4-text-to-image`

Model availability can change between releases. Use check_pricing or the Seedream model page for the current catalog view.

Agent Prompts

Ask your assistant in natural language; it can inspect pricing, create the task, and return the task id plus output URLs.

Create a task

Run a Seedream decompose layers task with RunAPI.

The assistant can call check_pricing, then decompose_layers, and return the task id, status, and output URLs.

Submit without waiting

Create the task but don't wait for it to finish.

The assistant calls the create tool with wait: false and returns the task id. Check on it later with get_task.

Check pricing before creating

Check current Seedream pricing, then create the task if it matches my request.

The assistant calls check_pricing and can link to the Seedream model page for the canonical catalog entry.

Configuration

The server resolves auth in this order:

RUNAPI_API_KEY environment variable, useful for headless and CI hosts
~/.config/runapi/config.json, created by the MCP login tool or runapi login
No key, which still allows check_pricing

The config file is normally managed by login. A pre-provisioned headless config can use:

{
  "apiKey": "your_runapi_key"
}

Do not commit real API keys.

Links

Resource	URL
Seedream model page	https://runapi.ai/models/seedream
npm package	@runapi.ai/seedream-mcp
GitHub repository	runapi-ai/seedream-mcp
RunAPI MCP overview	runapi.ai/mcp
RunAPI docs	runapi.ai/docs

License

Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0.

Available Tools

6 tools

check_pricingA

Look up RunAPI pricing for the seedream model line.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`model`	No	Model slug. Defaults to the line's primary model.
`action`	No	Endpoint name. Defaults to the endpoint that offers the model.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states a lookup operation but does not disclose side effects, permissions, return value format, or error behavior. Minimal transparency is provided.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence that immediately states the action and scope. It is well-structured and free of unnecessary information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is adequate for a simple lookup tool, but it does not mention the output format or any prerequisites (e.g., authentication). Given no output schema, the description could be more complete about what is returned.

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 schema already provides descriptions for both parameters, and the tool description adds no additional meaning. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: to look up RunAPI pricing for the seedream model line. It specifies the resource (pricing) and the scope (seedream), making it distinct from sibling tools like edit_image or text_to_image.

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?

The description implies usage when pricing information is needed but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it compare with alternatives. It is adequate but not explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

decompose_layersC

Create a Seedream task on RunAPI (decompose layers). Returns a task id, status, and output URLs.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`size`	No
`wait`	No	Poll until the task reaches a terminal status.
`model`	No	RunAPI model slug for this model line.
`prompt`	No	Optional instructions describing which elements to separate.
`image_url`	Yes	Exactly one public PNG, JPEG, WebP, BMP, TIFF, or GIF image URL; HEIC and HEIF are unsupported. Maximum 30 MB, 262,144-36,000,000 total pixels, and aspect ratio 1:16-16:1.
`timeout_ms`	No
`callback_url`	No
`output_format`	No	Base image format. Separated layers are PNG.
`poll_interval_ms`	No

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior but only states it returns a task id, status, and output URLs. It does not reveal that the operation is likely asynchronous, that status may require polling, that image_url has format/size constraints, or any error/rate-limit behaviors. Key behavioral aspects are omitted.

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 concise and well-structured in a single sentence, avoiding verbosity. However, it is too sparse to cover essential context, but for what it says, it is clean and understandable.

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?

The tool has no annotations, and the description only provides a high-level summary. It omits important context such as asynchronous behavior, input constraints beyond that in the schema, output details, and relationship to other tools. Significant gaps remain for an agent to reliably use the tool.

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 schema provides descriptions for 5 of 9 parameters (56% coverage), including essential ones like image_url, wait, model, prompt, and output_format. However, the description itself adds no parameter-level detailahan selain that it returns a task id, status, and output URLs. Parameters like size, timeout_ms, callback_url, and poll_interval_ms are left undocumented in both schema and description, leaving gaps.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (creating a Seedream task) and the resource (RunAPI for decompose layers), but does not elaborate on what decomposition entails or distinguish it deeply from sibling image editing tools. It is more specific than a tautology but lacks detailed purpose context.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like edit_image or get_task. The description only says 'Create a Seedream task' without mentioning prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions. The schema hints at asynchronous behavior via wait/poll parameters, but the description itself offers no usage direction.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

edit_imageC

Create a Seedream task on RunAPI (edit image). Returns a task id, status, and output URLs.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`seed`	No
`wait`	No	Poll until the task reaches a terminal status.
`model`	No	RunAPI model slug for this model line.
`prompt`	No
`timeout_ms`	No
`aspect_ratio`	No
`callback_url`	No
`output_count`	No
`output_format`	No
`output_quality`	No
`poll_interval_ms`	No
`output_resolution`	No
`source_image_urls`	Yes
`enable_safety_checker`	No

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions returns (task id, status, output URLs) but does not explain async behavior, polling, timeouts, or safety checks. The 'wait' parameter implies polling but is not described.

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 that front-loads the key action. It is concise, though it could benefit from additional context without being verbose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 14 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It omits essential context like parameter purpose, error handling, and task lifecycle.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 14% (2 of 14 parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds no parameter information, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 tool creates a Seedream task for editing images and returns task id, status, and output URLs. It directly distinguishes from siblings: login, get_task, and check_pricing.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, lacking context for selection or exclusion.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

get_taskA

Fetch the current status and latest result payload for a seedream task.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`action`	Yes	Asynchronous endpoint the task was created on.
`task_id`	Yes	Task id returned when the task was created.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations are none, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It states the tool fetches status and result payload, indicating a read-only nature. However, it does not mention whether the call is blocking, rate-limited, or what happens if the task is still running. It adds some value by describing the output (status and latest result) but lacks depth.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence that conveys the core action and object. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with the verb 'Fetch'. Perfectly structured for a simple tool.

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 simple read operation with 2 fully documented parametersches, the description is sufficient. It states what is fetched (status, result payload) without needing to explain return values since no output schema is present. It does not mention asynchronous behavior or poll semantics, but that is not critical for a basic status fetch.

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% — both 'task_id' and 'action' have descriptions and action has an enum. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, but that's acceptable given the high coverage. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action: 'Fetch the current status and latest result payload for a seedream task.' It identifies the resource (task) and the specific data retrieved. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that create tasks (decompose_layers, edit_image, text_to_image) by focusing on retrieval rather than submission.

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?

The description implies usage after a task has been created (since it fetches status/result of a 'seedream task'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites or that this should be polled after async operations. The context is clear but not explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

loginA

Authenticate RunAPI by opening a browser PKCE login flow and saving the API key to ~/.config/runapi/config.json.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`force`	No	Re-run browser login when the current credential comes from the local config file.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions the browser login flow and file saving, but omits details like side effects (e.g., overwriting existing config), error handling, or that it requires user interaction. This leaves ambiguity for an AI agent.

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?

One sentence with no wasted words. It starts with the verb 'Authenticate' and efficiently conveys the core action and destination. Ideal conciseness for a simple tool.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential flow and output location. Minor missing context: it doesn't state that this is a setup step or that it requires a browser, but overall adequate for the complexity.

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% (one parameter fully described). The tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema; the force parameter is explained in the schema itself. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description adds no extra semantic value.

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 action: authenticate via browser PKCE login flow and save the API key to a specific config file. It uniquely identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from unrelated sibling tools like check_pricing or text_to_image.

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?

The description implies when to use (to authenticate), but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. The force parameter hint is in the schema, not the description. No exclusions or context about prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

text_to_imageB

Create a Seedream task on RunAPI (text to image). Returns a task id, status, and output URLs.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`seed`	No
`wait`	No	Poll until the task reaches a terminal status.
`model`	No	RunAPI model slug for this model line.
`prompt`	No
`timeout_ms`	No
`aspect_ratio`	No
`callback_url`	No
`output_count`	No
`output_format`	No
`output_quality`	No
`poll_interval_ms`	No
`output_resolution`	No
`enable_safety_checker`	No

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the return values (task id, status, output URLs) but does not disclose that the task is asynchronous, whether it waits, or any other traits like safety checks or rate limits. This is a significant gap given the schema includes wait and polling parameters.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no filler. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool has 13 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, making complete context essential. The description provides only the basic purpose and return type, omitting important usage context such as required parameters, async behavior, and parameter semantics, so it is far from complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With only 15% schema description coverage, the description adds no parameter-level details. It does not explain what 'seed', 'output_format', or other parameters do, and fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 uses the verb 'Create' and specifies the resource 'Seedream task on RunAPI' with the scope 'text to image', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like edit_image. It also states the return value, further clarifying the tool's function.

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?

The description implies the tool is for generating a text-to-image task, giving clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or recommend alternative tools such as get_task or edit_image for other cases, leaving usage guidance mostly implicit.

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.

3 tool updatesv0.1.9Aug 19, 2026

Changedcheck_pricing2 fields changed

changedInput schema / properties / action / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "edit_image",
-  "text_to_image"
-]New value: +[
+  "decompose_layers",
+  "edit_image",
+  "text_to_image"
+]

changedInput schema / properties / model / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "seedream-4.5-edit",
-  "seedream-5-lite-edit",
-  "seedream-5-pro-edit",
-  "seedream-v4-edit",
-  "seedream-4.5-text-to-image",
-  "seedream-5-lite-text-to-image",
-  "seedream-5-pro-text-to-image",
-  "seedream-v4-text-to-image"
-]New value: +[
+  "seedream-5-pro-layer-decomposition",
+  "seedream-4.5-edit",
+  "seedream-5-lite-edit",
+  "seedream-5-pro-edit",
+  "seedream-v4-edit",
+  "seedream-4.5-text-to-image",
+  "seedream-5-lite-text-to-image",
+  "seedream-5-pro-text-to-image",
+  "seedream-v4-text-to-image"
+]

Addeddecompose_layers

Changedget_task1 field changed

changedInput schema / properties / action / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "edit_image",
-  "text_to_image"
-]New value: +[
+  "decompose_layers",
+  "edit_image",
+  "text_to_image"
+]

1 tool updatev0.1.8Aug 5, 2026
- Addedtext_to_image

4 tool updatesv0.1.7Jul 22, 2026

Changedcheck_pricing1 field changed

changedInput schema / properties / model / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "seedream-4.5-edit",
-  "seedream-5-lite-edit",
-  "seedream-v4-edit",
-  "seedream-4.5-text-to-image",
-  "seedream-5-lite-text-to-image",
-  "seedream-v4-text-to-image"
-]New value: +[
+  "seedream-4.5-edit",
+  "seedream-5-lite-edit",
+  "seedream-5-pro-edit",
+  "seedream-v4-edit",
+  "seedream-4.5-text-to-image",
+  "seedream-5-lite-text-to-image",
+  "seedream-5-pro-text-to-image",
+  "seedream-v4-text-to-image"
+]

Changededit_image14 fields changed
- addedInput schema / properties / callback_url
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
- addedInput schema / properties / enable_safety_checker
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```
- changedInput schema / properties / model / enum
```
Previous value: -[
-  "seedream-4.5-edit",
-  "seedream-5-lite-edit",
-  "seedream-v4-edit"
-]New value: +[
+  "seedream-4.5-edit",
+  "seedream-5-lite-edit",
+  "seedream-5-pro-edit",
+  "seedream-v4-edit"
+]
```
- removedInput schema / properties / output_count / enum
```
Removed value: -[
-  1,
-  2,
-  3,
-  4,
-  5,
-  6
-]
```
- addedInput schema / properties / output_format
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
- removedInput schema / properties / output_quality / enum
```
Removed value: -[
-  "basic",
-  "high"
-]
```
- removedInput schema / properties / output_resolution / enum
```
Removed value: -[
-  "1k",
-  "2k",
-  "4k"
-]
```
- addedInput schema / properties / prompt
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
- addedInput schema / properties / seed
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "number"
+}
```
- addedInput schema / properties / source_image_urls / items
```
Added value: +{}
```
- addedInput schema / properties / source_image_urls / maxItems
```
Added value: +14
```
- addedInput schema / properties / source_image_urls / minItems
```
Added value: +1
```
- addedInput schema / properties / source_image_urls / type
```
Added value: +"array"
```
- addedInput schema / required
```
Added value: +[
+  "source_image_urls"
+]
```

Changedget_task1 field changed

changedInput schema / properties / action / description

Previous value: -"Endpoint the task was created on."New value: +"Asynchronous endpoint the task was created on."

Removedtext_to_image

1 tool updatev0.1.6Jul 13, 2026
- Addedlogin
4 tool updatesv0.1.0Jun 23, 2026
- First observedcheck_pricing
- First observededit_image
- First observedget_task
- First observedtext_to_image

Install Server

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

The creation tools (text_to_image, edit_image, decompose_layers) are distinct in purpose, though all share similar descriptions. get_task, login, and check_pricing are clearly separate, but the three creation tools could be confused if the descriptions were less clear about their specific operations.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names use a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., 'get_task', 'edit_image', 'check_pricing'). The only minor deviation is 'login' (a single verb) and 'decompose_layers' (verb with object but not a standard CRUD noun). Overall, the pattern is predictable.

Tool Count4/5

With 6 tools, the count is well within the ideal range for a focused server. Each tool covers authentication, task creation, status checking, and pricing, which is reasonable for the scope. No redundancy or bloat is apparent.

Completeness3/5

The server covers the core lifecycle of creating tasks, checking results, and authenticating, but it lacks a cancellation or listing operation. Users cannot list all tasks or cancel a task, which could be a gap for an agent managing multiple tasks. However, for simple workflows, the core is sufficient.

Maintenance

ActivityMaintained

ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Need Help?

Related Servers

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

runapi-mcpOAuth
io.github.runapi-builder
130+ AI models for image, video, music, and audio — 18 model families, one RunAPI account.
AI & Machine Learning Multimedia Processing
155
ModelRunnerOAuth
ai.modelrunner
Run 100+ AI models — image, video, audio, 3D — through one API with pay-per-use billing.
AI & Machine Learning Multimedia Processing
2
CCAPI A
ai.ccapi
Image, video, music and text generation across 100+ models through one endpoint.
AI & Machine Learning Image & Video Processing Audio Processing
111
mcp A
com.unifically
One API for 100+ AI video, image, music and speech models.
AI & Machine Learning Image & Video Processing Audio Processing
141

Related MCP Servers

GPT Image MCP Server
Image & Video Processing AI & Machine Learning
runapi-ai
A
license
B
quality
A
maintenance
Enables creating and managing GPT Image tasks (edit and text-to-image) via RunAPI, with options to poll status and check pricing.
Updated a month ago (2026-07-31 09:32 UTC)
5
107
Apache 2.0
grok-imagine-mcp
AI & Machine Learning Image & Video Processing
runapi-ai
A
license
B
quality
A
maintenance
Enables AI image and video generation tasks (text-to-image, image-to-video, edit, upscale, etc.) via RunAPI, with support for polling and pricing lookups.
Updated 2 days ago (2026-09-04 10:59 UTC)
10
280
Apache 2.0
Nano Banana MCP Server
AI & Machine Learning Image & Video Processing
runapi-ai
A
license
A
quality
A
maintenance
Enables users to create image editing and text-to-image tasks, poll their status, and check pricing for the Nano Banana model line through a RunAPI API key.
Updated a month ago (2026-07-31 09:37 UTC)
4
68
Apache 2.0
runway-mcp
Multimedia Processing AI & Machine Learning
runapi-ai
A
license
A
quality
A
maintenance
Enables creating and managing Runway video generation tasks (text-to-video, video extension) through a single RunAPI key, including task polling and pricing checks.
Updated a month ago (2026-07-31 09:38 UTC)
5
69
Apache 2.0

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/runapi-ai/seedream-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server