iLook Face Analysis

Analyze Golden Ratio face

analyze_golden_ratio_face

Read-only

Returns an approximate visible Golden Ratio phi score and proportion cues.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`mime_type`	Yes	Image media type. Supported formats are JPEG, PNG, and WebP.
`image_base64`	Yes	Base64-encoded JPEG, PNG, or WebP bytes, without a data URL prefix.
`adult_and_authorized`	Yes	Confirms the pictured person is an adult and the submission is lawful.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tool`	Yes	Focused measurement key.
`error`	No	Present when the focused analysis fails.
`model`	Yes	Model version used for visible analysis.
`phi_score`	No	Optional Golden Ratio context when relevant.
`disclaimer`	Yes	Required responsible-use disclaimer.
`face_shape`	No	Optional face-shape context when relevant.
`analysis_id`	Yes	Unique analysis identifier.
`measurement`	Yes	Score, label, analysis, and tool-specific detail rows.
`rubric_version`	Yes	Versioned iLook scoring rubric.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

AddedAug 21, 2026
RemovedAug 20, 2026

Changed2 schema fields changedAug 19, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / mime_type / description

Added value: +"Image media type. Supported formats are JPEG, PNG, and WebP."

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "analysis_id": {
+      "description": "Unique analysis identifier.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "disclaimer": {
+      "description": "Required responsible-use disclaimer.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "error": {
+      "description": "Present when the focused analysis fails.",
+      "properties": {
+        "code": {
+          "description": "Stable iLook error code.",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "message": {
+          "description": "Human-readable failure explanation.",
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "face_shape": {
+      "description": "Optional face-shape context when relevant.",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "measurement": {
+      "description": "Score, label, analysis, and tool-specific detail rows.",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "model": {
+      "description": "Model version used for visible analysis.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "phi_score": {
+      "description": "Optional Golden Ratio context when relevant.",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "rubric_version": {
+      "description": "Versioned iLook scoring rubric.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "tool": {
+      "description": "Focused measurement key.",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "analysis_id",
+    "rubric_version",
+    "model",
+    "tool",
+    "measurement",
+    "disclaimer"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

AddedAug 18, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds little behavioral context beyond the return type (score and cues). It doesn't mention that results are approximate or that output is based on visible features, which is useful but not fully developed. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single sentence, concise and to the point. It front-loads the primary output ('phi score') and mentions proportion cues, with no fluff. Highly efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is an output schema, but its content is unknown. The description mentions 'proportion cues' but doesn't detail what those are. The tool has a specific purpose (golden ratio) and three parameters, but the description doesn't explain the method or limitations (e.g., 'approximate'). Given the complexity and the presence of many sibling analysis tools, more detail on what the score means and how it's computed would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are well-documented. The description doesn't add any extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, and it doesn't clarify how the parameters affect the analysis. Since the schema is sufficient, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 returns a 'visible Golden Ratio phi score and proportion cues', but the phrase 'approximate visible' is a bit vague. It distinguishes it from siblings like 'calculate_facial_ratios' by focusing on the golden ratio specifically, but could be more precise about what 'visible' means.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings like 'calculate_facial_ratios' or 'analyze_facial_symmetry'. The description implies it's for golden ratio scoring, but doesn't say when not to use it or mention alternatives. Sibling tools suggest overlapping functionality, but no exclusions are provided.

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

All iLook Face Analysis 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

A3.8/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes (e.g., age, skin, symmetry), but 'score_face' overlaps with several others (face shape, golden ratio, attractiveness) and could be confused with the individual analyzers. Descriptions are clear enough to differentiate, but the aggregation tool introduces some ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with lowercase and underscores (analyze_*, detect_*, calculate_*, etc.). The verb varies but the format is uniform and readable.

Tool Count5/5

14 tools is a well-scoped number for a face analysis server—not too few to be trivial, not too many to be overwhelming. Each tool covers a specific metric or feature.

Completeness5/5

The toolset covers a broad range of facial analysis dimensions (age, symmetry, ratios, skin, eye shape, hairstyle, jawline, attractiveness, color palette, golden ratio, PSL) and appears to provide a full suite for the intended domain.

Resources

Need Help?