Magic Hour

ai_clothes_changer_create_image

Change outfits in photos in seconds with just a photo reference. Each photo costs 25 credits.

MCP guidance:

This starts an async image generation job and returns id plus credits_charged immediately. If the user wants the finished result, call the wait_for_image_project helper with the returned id, or poll the matching GET /v1/image-projects/{id} endpoint until status is complete, error, or canceled. Completed projects include downloads with direct URLs. The custom wait helper also returns exact_download_urls separately from expiration metadata.
For *_file_path values, prefer an existing Magic Hour file path or a file_path returned by the upload-URL endpoint after the file bytes are uploaded. Direct public media URLs may work when they are stable, fetchable, and return raw file bytes, but hotlinked URLs can fail; when in doubt, use the presigned upload flow first and pass the returned file_path.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No	Give your image a custom name for easy identification.	Clothes Changer - dateTime
`assets`	Yes	Provide the assets for clothes changer

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Unique ID of the image. Use it with the [Get image Project API](https://docs.magichour.ai/api-reference/image-projects/get-image-details) to fetch status and downloads.
`credits_charged`	Yes	The amount of credits deducted from your account to generate the image. We charge credits right when the request is made. If an error occurred while generating the image(s), credits will be refunded and this field will be updated to include the refund.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so thoroughly. It states that the tool starts an async job, returns `id` and `credits_charged` immediately, and explains how to wait or poll for completion. It also discloses the 25-credit cost and warns about file-path/hotlink limitations, which are important side effects and failure modes.

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 well structured and front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose, followed by focused MCP guidance bullets. Every sentence serves a distinct function: setting expectations, explaining async result retrieval, and clarifying file-path best practices. There is no filler or tautology.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a tool with async behavior, cost implications, nested assets, and file-path pitfalls, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. It explains the immediate return, the wait/poll workflow, terminal statuses, download URLs, and file upload guidance. The output schema covers return-value details, so no significant gap remains.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the description need not restate parameter definitions. It goes beyond the schema by explaining preferred `*_file_path` usage: prefer Magic Hour file paths or upload-URL returned paths, and avoid hotlinked URLs that may fail. This adds practical meaning that helps the agent supply valid inputs.

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 first sentence clearly states the core action: 'Change outfits in photos in seconds with just a photo reference.' This identifies the tool's specific purpose and distinguishes it from unrelated siblings like voice or video tools. It does not explicitly contrast it with the closest image-manipulation siblings such as body_swap_create_image or ai_image_editor_create_image, so it stops short of a 5.

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 usage context is clear: use this tool when the user wants to change or swap clothing in a photo using a reference image. The guidance about async generation and file paths is practical for invocation. It does not explicitly describe when to prefer a sibling tool instead, but the purpose sentence provides enough contextual direction for selection.

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

All Magic Hour tools Inspect

Try in Browser

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

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

Most tools are differentiated by product-specific prefixes (e.g., lip_sync, text_to_video, image_upscaler), but the set contains many overlapping create_image/create_video tools, and generic editors like ai_image_editor_create_image and ai_video_editor_create_video blur boundaries with their more specific counterparts. Face/body swapping tools also occupy a similar conceptual space, requiring careful description reading to avoid misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names generally follow a descriptive snake_case pattern of feature plus action (e.g., text_to_video_create_video, image_projects_delete, wait_for_image_project). Minor inconsistencies like ai_face_editor_edit_image versus the dominant create_image suffix, and the mixed ai_ prefix usage across tools, prevent a perfect score.

Tool Count2/5

44 tools is a large surface for an MCP server, even for a broad media-generation API. The count exceeds the 25+ threshold and creates a heavy selection burden, especially with over a dozen create tools for images and videos.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers the full create-to-download workflow for image, video, and audio: creation, status polling, wait helpers, fetch helpers, delete, and asset upload support. Minor gaps include no list/cancel endpoints and no general project search, but agents can complete core tasks without dead ends.

Resources

Need Help?