iLook Face Analysis

Run subjective appearance test

run_attractiveness_test

Read-only

Returns a photo-specific subjective appearance score and visible basis.

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

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds minimal context by noting the score is 'photo-specific' and includes a 'visible basis', which hints at output structure but does not disclose additional behaviors (e.g., auth needs, rate limits, or side effects). No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It contains no filler or redundant information, earning every word.

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?

The tool has a solid schema (100% param coverage, output schema present) and annotations covering safety. However, the description lacks any guidance on alternative tools or use-case boundaries, which is relevant given the large sibling set. It is adequate for a read-only scoring tool but not fully complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters (image_base64, mime_type, adult_and_authorized) fully described in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and clearly identifies the resource ('photo-specific subjective appearance score and visible basis'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by highlighting 'subjective' and 'photo-specific', which sets it apart from objective facial analysis tools like analyze_canthal_tilt or calculate_facial_ratios.

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 the many sibling tools (e.g., score_face, analyze_psl_score). It simply states what it returns without any context on scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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?