Skip to main content
Glama
Luvi-io

Luw MCP Server

Official
by Luvi-io
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Exterior design (Exterior AI)

luw_exterior_design

Luw.ai Exterior AI: redesign a building exterior or facade photo — houses, villas, apartments, commercial buildings — in a new architectural style, with new materials, colors and landscaping, keeping the structure.

Instructions

Luw.ai Exterior AI: redesign a building exterior or facade photo — houses, villas, apartments, commercial buildings — in a new architectural style, with new materials, colors and landscaping, keeping the structure. Costs 1 credit per variation.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
seedNoFix for reproducible results.
imageYesPhoto of the building (https:// URL, local file path, or data: URI).
engineNoLuw.ai model: aria (default) or symphony (Symphony-3).
formatNoOutput image format.
promptNoWhat you want, in plain language.
stylesNoDesign style names, e.g. ["Scandinavian"]; for Japandi use ["Japanese Design", "Scandinavian"]. Case-sensitive; see luw_list_options.
precisionNoHow strictly to keep the input's structure: 90 = precise, 75 = balanced, 40 = creative.
persona_idNoPersona whose saved images and style knowledge to use.
variationsNoNumber of alternative designs (1-4, default 1); each is billed as a generation.
building_typeNoBuilding/space type, e.g. "Modern House Exterior", "Luxury Villa Exterior", "Outdoor Patio" (see luw_list_options kind="exterior_types").
enhance_promptNoLet Luw.ai's prompt enhancer expand a short prompt.
style_referenceNoStyle-transfer source: an image whose look to copy (https:// URL, local file path, or data: URI), or "persona" to use slot 1 of persona_id.
reference_imagesNoUp to 6 reference images (furniture, materials, products, mood boards) to draw from.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.3.2
    • changedInput schema / properties / persona_id / description
      Previous value: -"Persona whose saved images/knowledge to use (see luw_personas)."New value: +"Persona whose saved images and style knowledge to use."
    • changedInput schema / properties / styles / description
      Previous value: -"Design style names, e.g. [\"Japandi\"]. Case-sensitive; see luw_list_options."New value: +"Design style names, e.g. [\"Scandinavian\"]; for Japandi use [\"Japanese Design\", \"Scandinavian\"]. Case-sensitive; see luw_list_options."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, non-idempotent, open-world). The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context not in the annotations: the credit cost ('Costs 1 credit per variation') and the structure-preserving constraint. It does not explain async result retrieval or failure behavior, so it is solid but not rich.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two tight sentences with no waste: the tool identity and effect are front-loaded, and the credit cost is isolated as its own sentence. It earns its length, though the middle em-dash list is denser than necessary.

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?

For a 13-parameter generation tool with no output schema and only 1 required param, the description covers the core operation and cost but omits how generated results are retrieved (e.g., luw_get_result) and any constraints like supported input size. Adequate but leaves the agent short of full operational understanding.

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%, so every one of the 13 parameters is already documented (precision, variations, style_reference, persona_id, etc.). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

State a specific verb+resource: 'redesign a building exterior or facade photo', with concrete building-type examples and the output nature (new style, materials, colors, landscaping, structure preserved). The 'exterior' scope implicitly separates it from luw_interior_design and luw_landscape_design, but no sibling is named explicitly, so an agent must infer the routing.

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?

There is no when-to-use/when-not guidance and no naming of alternatives, despite adjacent siblings (luw_interior_design, luw_landscape_design, luw_render) that overlap closely. The scope word 'exterior' implies usage but leaves the agent to infer selection.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools