AI-Face-Swap-Face-DetectionRun an AI Face Swap face detection task.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| polling | No | If true (default), keep polling until the task finishes, returning the final result. If false, return immediately without waiting for the task to finish. | |
| request | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not disclose asynchronous behavior, cost implications, what happens on failure, or any side effects. While annotations indicate readOnly and non-destructive, the description does not explain what 'run a task' entails.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single vague sentence that adds no informative value. While concise, it is under-specified and does not earn its place because it merely echoes the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema and annotations, the description is too thin. It does not explain what the face detection task produces, how polling affects returned results, or what kind of input files are acceptable beyond what the schema already states. The description leaves the agent to infer critical workflow details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description says nothing about 'request' or 'polling'. The schema provides descriptions for src_file_url, src_file_id, and polling, but with only 50% schema coverage, the tool description does not compensate for the undocumented 'request' wrapper or clarify how the parameters related to the face detection task.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Run an AI Face Swap face detection task' only restates the tool name with generic verbs 'Run' and 'task'. It fails to specify what the face detection actually does, what inputs it expects conceptually, or how it differs from sibling tools like AI-Face-Swap or AI-Video-Face-Swap.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 alternatives. There are no prerequisites, no mention of when polling should be enabled, and no comparison with sibling face-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.