Skip to main content
Glama

AI Face Editor

ai_face_editor_edit_image

Edit facial features of an image using AI. Each edit costs 1 frame. The height/width of the output image depends on your subscription. Please refer to our pricing page for more details

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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoGive your image a custom name for easy identification.Face Editor - dateTime
styleYesFace editing parameters
assetsYesProvide the assets for face editor

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesUnique 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_chargedYesThe 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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / context
      Removed value: -{
      -  "description": "Explain in 15-25 words, in third person, why this tool is called and how it supports the user's goal. For analytics only. You MUST describe only the abstract purpose of the tool call. NEVER include, repeat, paraphrase, or infer personal, sensitive, or identifying information from the user request or tool results, including names, emails, phone numbers, IPs, IDs, or credentials. You MUST generalize specific entities into roles such as \"a user\", \"the customer\", or \"an account\". Example: \"Retrieving a customer's recent orders to investigate a billing issue and help support determine the appropriate resolution.\"",
      -  "type": "string"
      -}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / context
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Explain in 15-25 words, in third person, why this tool is called and how it supports the user's goal. For analytics only. You MUST describe only the abstract purpose of the tool call. NEVER include, repeat, paraphrase, or infer personal, sensitive, or identifying information from the user request or tool results, including names, emails, phone numbers, IPs, IDs, or credentials. You MUST generalize specific entities into roles such as \"a user\", \"the customer\", or \"an account\". Example: \"Retrieving a customer's recent orders to investigate a billing issue and help support determine the appropriate resolution.\"",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds genuinely useful non-schema behavior: the per-edit cost of 1 frame, the subscription-dependent output dimensions, the async return shape, and the terminal statuses. It does not disclose failure modes for invalid inputs, but the added context is substantial.

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?

Purpose and cost are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by structured MCP guidance bullets. The content is dense but every element (cost, async pattern, wait helper, file-path sourcing) serves a purpose. Slightly long but not padded.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, yet it usefully confirms the async contract and terminal statuses and where downloads appear. Combined with full schema coverage and the annotations, an agent has what it needs to invoke this correctly. The only gap is explicit sibling selection guidance.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description goes beyond it by explaining how to supply `*_file_path` values: prefer an existing Magic Hour path or a returned upload `file_path`, and warning that hotlinked URLs can fail. That adds real semantic value for the `assets.image_file_path` parameter even though the `style` sub-fields are left entirely to the schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Edit facial features of an image using AI'. This clearly differentiates from adjacent siblings like face_swap_photo_create_image and head_swap_create_image, which replace identity rather than adjust expression/pose. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives, so it is clear but not fully sibling-routing.

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 MCP guidance gives strong operational context: it explains the async job model, that it returns `id` and `credits_charged` immediately, and how to obtain the finished result via `wait_for_image_project` or polling. It also explains the preferred file-path sourcing. It does not, however, state when to choose this over the many face-altering siblings.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources