Copy a face, character, style, pose, or other reference image into a project's refs folder, then return the path to upload to ChatGPT.
Copy a reference image (the user's face photo, a style sample) into the project's refs folder. Upload the returned path to ChatGPT.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | What to take from it, e.g. "take only the face" | |
| path | Yes | Absolute path of the source image | |
| role | Yes | ||
| project | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that a path is returned and that the image is copied into a refs folder, which is useful behavioral context. However, it omits whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on overwrite, permission needs, or file format constraints.
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?
Two tight sentences with zero waste. The core action is front-loaded, and the follow-up step (upload path to ChatGPT) is a useful, compact addition.
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?
For a 4-parameter tool with only 50% schema coverage and no annotations or output schema, the description does a decent job of conveying the core workflow but leaves gaps. It doesn't explain what 'refs folder' implies for the project or how the returned path should be used beyond uploading to ChatGPT.
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?
Schema coverage is 50% – the 'note' and 'path' parameters are documented in the schema, and the enum for 'role' is evident, but 'project' has no description anywhere. The description adds examples of what a reference image could be but doesn't clarify parameter usage beyond what the schema already provides.
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?
States a clear verb+resource: copying a reference image into the project's refs folder, with concrete examples (face photo, style sample). It doesn't differentiate from siblings like set_anchor or ingest, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.
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 implies when to use it (before prompting ChatGPT with a reference), but offers no explicit exclusions or comparison to alternatives like set_anchor or ingest. The final sentence hints at workflow context but stops short of clear when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.