Magic Hour

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

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No	Give your image a custom name for easy identification.	Face Editor - dateTime
`style`	Yes	Face editing parameters
`assets`	Yes	Provide the assets for face editor

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

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so thoroughly. It explains that the call starts an async job, returns id and credits_charged immediately, how to poll for completion, and what statuses to expect. It also discloses cost, output dimension variability by subscription, and common file-path 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: purpose and cost first, then actionable MCP guidance in bullets. Every sentence adds value, and the formatting makes the async workflow and file-path rules easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, the description is highly complete. It covers the async workflow, polling, completion statuses, download URLs, credit cost, output resolution caveats, and file input best practices. The detailed schema and output schema cover the remaining parameter and return-value details.

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?

The schema already documents all parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful extra guidance for file_path values, including preferring upload-URL file paths over hotlinked URLs and explaining when direct URLs may work. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 function: 'Edit facial features of an image using AI.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like face swap, body swap, or headshot generation. The purpose is specific, concrete, and easy to act on.

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 description provides strong context for when to use the tool, such as editing facial features and handling async image generation. It gives explicit guidance on using wait_for_image_project after invocation and on preferring Magic Hour file paths over direct URLs. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the use case is clear enough.

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?