Skip to main content
Glama

YouCam for Beauty & Personal Care

by com.makeupar
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Ai Makeup Virtual Try On

AI-Makeup-Virtual-Try-On

The AI Makeup API provides a powerful, hyper-realistic virtual makeover experience powered by our patented face-analyzing technology. This service enables your applications to apply true-to-life makeup effects onto user-provided selfie images with unprecedented customization capabilities. Key Features:

  • Hyper-realistic Rendering: Leverages revolutionary 3D face AI technology for the most realistic makeovers.

  • Patented Technology: Powered by jitter-free, lag-free deep learning algorithms optimized for all ages and ethnicities.

  • Real-time Precision: Ultra-precise facial tracking that adapts to various lighting conditions.

  • True-to-life Matching: Accurately matches real-world product colors, textures (from matte to metallic), and finishes.

  • Core Concepts

    • Color Blending Our AI accurately matches the color of real-life makeup products using deep learning. This ensures consumers are confident that the virtual color they see is the true color of the product they intend to purchase.

    • Texture & Finish Matching The technology simulates realistic textures and finishes, providing a highly accurate makeover experience. From matte to metallic, shimmer to satin, the AI taps into advanced algorithms to render these effects seamlessly in real-time.

    • Light Balancing The smart 3D AI engine detects lighting conditions in the user's photo or video feed. It corrects images for true-to-life makeup application, ensuring a consistent and high-quality result regardless of the environment.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pollingNoIf true (default), keep polling until the task finishes, returning the final result. If false, return immediately without waiting for the task to finish.
requestYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description carries the burden of explaining execution behavior. It fails to disclose that this is an asynchronous task (with polling), how the input image is supplied (URL vs file ID), or what the response contains. The technology-focused text doesn't address these API behaviors.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long and filled with marketing claims about patented technology and hyper-realism. Bullet points and 'Core Concepts' take up space without providing actionable invocation details. A concise, front-loaded description of actual tool behavior would be far more useful.

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?

This is a complex asynchronous tool with a large nested schema and many sibling makeup/analysis tools. The description lacks essential details: how to construct a valid effects array, the polling mechanism, the two source-input options, and the nature of the output. The rich schema doesn't compensate for the description's failure to explain the overall invocation flow.

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?

The input schema is highly detailed, but the description adds no semantic information about top-level parameters like 'request' or 'polling'. It doesn't explain that the request accepts either src_file_url or src_file_id, nor does it clarify the effects array structure. With only 50% schema coverage, the description should compensate but doesn't.

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 tool applies realistic makeup effects to user-provided selfie images, using a specific action ('apply') and resource ('makeup effects onto selfie images'). However, it's wrapped in marketing language and doesn't distinguish it from similar sibling tools like AI-Makeup-Transfer or AI-Look-Virtual-Try-On, so it doesn't merit 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 Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings, no prerequisites, and no mention of the request structure or asynchronous behavior. It reads as a feature list rather than a usage guide, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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

All YouCam for Beauty & Personal Care toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources