Uwear

Update Preferences

update_preferences

Destructive

Update durable user preferences, photoshoot processes, or add a prompt. Treat all model fields as explicit model pins: leave model fields unset for normal backend defaults unless the user deliberately selected a specific model. The preferred way to save how a user generates is a template (save_template): a generation-preset template for reusable concrete single-shoot settings, a batch-workflow template for an ordered repeatable multi-shot flow — see the Demo — … system templates for worked examples. Use preferences for durable raw-text guidance that is not a concrete shoot setup.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`add_prompt`	No	Prompt to save: {text, category, is_favorite}
`preferences`	No	Preference key-value updates. Model fields (default_model, default_edit_model, default_upscale_model, default_video_model, and process-level model) are explicit pins only; leave them unset for backend defaults. Prefer a generation-preset template for reproducible concrete shoot settings and a batch-workflow template for an ordered multi-shot flow. Other fields include default_aspect_ratio, preferred_camera, default_resolution, photoshoot_processes, etc. Processes format: [{name, model, camera, aspect_ratio, resolution, prompt, num_images, pipeline: [{type, editModel, editPrompt, ...}], is_default}]

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations include destructiveHint=true but the description adds valuable context: 'durable' implies persistence, and it explains the nuanced behavior of model fields ('explicit model pins: leave model fields unset for normal backend defaults'). This goes beyond the annotations by clarifying side effects and default handling.

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 concise but content-rich. It front-loads the core action, then explains model-field behavior, and finally gives template vs. preference guidance. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy.

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?

The tool has no output schema and few parameters, but one parameter has a complex nested format. The description covers the key decision points (template vs. preference) and the pinning semantics, making it sufficient for most usage. It could mention overwrite behavior (since destructiveHint=true), but the annotation already signals this.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptive parameter details (e.g., processes format, add_prompt structure). The description adds the high-level distinction between preferences and templates, but doesn't detail individual parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given strong 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's function: 'Update durable user preferences, photoshoot processes, or add a prompt.' It uses a specific verb ('update') and resource, and explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool save_template by describing preferences as durable raw-text guidance rather than concrete shoot setups.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit guidance: 'The preferred way to save how a user generates is a template (save_template)... Use preferences for durable raw-text guidance that is not a concrete shoot setup.' It also instructs when to leave model fields unset, giving clear when-to-use versus when-not-to-use direction.

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

All Uwear 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

A3.5/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

Most tools target distinct resources and have detailed descriptions, but several closely related families exist: create_credit_checkout_session vs mcp_create_credit_checkout_session, the propose_brief/confirm_brief/update_brief lifecycle, and the many avatar/upload entry points. An agent must read long caveats carefully to avoid selecting the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency4/5

The vast majority of tool names follow a predictable snake_case verb_noun pattern (list_*, get_*, create_*, update_*, propose_*). The mcp_* prefix group and varied creation verbs (create/upload/save/add/generate) are minor deviations, though mcp_create_credit_checkout_session duplicating create_credit_checkout_session adds some confusion.

Tool Count1/5

With 67 tools, this is an extreme mismatch by the rubric's own 50+ threshold, far beyond the typical 3-15 well-scoped range. Many tools are narrow lifecycle steps such as two-phase local uploads, app-only montage internals, and multiple ArtDirection authoring variants, making the agent-facing surface very heavy.

Completeness3/5

The core generation, brief, montage, and QA workflows are covered thoroughly with polling and result retrieval. However, notable lifecycle gaps exist: outfits, locations, avatars, and tags mostly have create/list/get but no update or delete, and delete_template is the only delete tool in the entire set.

Resources

Need Help?