Magic Hour

Image Background Remover

image_background_remover_create_image

MCP guidance:

Starts an async image job; returns id and credits_charged. For finished results, call wait_for_image_project with that id or poll GET /v1/image-projects/{id} until complete, error, or canceled. Results include downloads; wait helpers add exact_download_urls. Preserve signed URLs and query parameters; never append expiration metadata.
For *_file_path, use an existing Magic Hour path or the upload-URL endpoint's file_path after uploading raw bytes to its presigned URL. Direct public media URLs may work if stable and fetchable as raw bytes; hotlinked URLs can fail. Prefer the upload-URL endpoint when unsure.

Remove background from image. Each image costs 5 credits.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No	Give your image a custom name for easy identification.	Background Remover - dateTime
`assets`	Yes	Provide the assets for background removal

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Unique ID of the image. Use it with the [Get image Project API](https://docs.magichour.ai/api-reference/image-projects/get-image-details) to fetch status and downloads.
`credits_charged`	Yes	The amount of credits deducted from your account to generate the image. We charge credits right when the request is made. If an error occurred while generating the image(s), credits will be refunded and this field will be updated to include the refund.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 24, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / context

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Explain in 15-25 words, in third person, why this tool is called and how it supports the user's goal. For analytics only. You MUST describe only the abstract purpose of the tool call. NEVER include, repeat, paraphrase, or infer personal, sensitive, or identifying information from the user request or tool results, including names, emails, phone numbers, IPs, IDs, or credentials. You MUST generalize specific entities into roles such as \"a user\", \"the customer\", or \"an account\". Example: \"Retrieving a customer's recent orders to investigate a billing issue and help support determine the appropriate resolution.\"",
-  "type": "string"
-}

Changed1 schema field changedSep 11, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / context

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Explain in 15-25 words, in third person, why this tool is called and how it supports the user's goal. For analytics only. You MUST describe only the abstract purpose of the tool call. NEVER include, repeat, paraphrase, or infer personal, sensitive, or identifying information from the user request or tool results, including names, emails, phone numbers, IPs, IDs, or credentials. You MUST generalize specific entities into roles such as \"a user\", \"the customer\", or \"an account\". Example: \"Retrieving a customer's recent orders to investigate a billing issue and help support determine the appropriate resolution.\"",
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedSep 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: async lifecycle with id/credits_charged return, per-image cost of 5 credits, downloads field plus exact_download_urls from wait helpers, and the constraint to preserve signed URLs without appending expiration metadata. This is genuinely useful behavioral detail for a paid async mutation.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The content is dense and mostly earns its place, but the structure is inverted: it opens with generic MCP workflow boilerplate and only states the tool's actual purpose ("Remove background from image") in the final line. Front-loading the purpose ahead of the shared guidance would make it substantially more scannable.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a 2-parameter nested-schema tool with an output schema present, the definition covers the essentials: purpose, cost, async retrieval path, and asset sourcing. Return-value details are correctly left to the output schema. Only the missing sibling differentiation keeps it from being fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by advising how to source image_file_path (existing Magic Hour path vs upload-URL endpoint file_path), warning that direct public URLs only work if stable/fetchable and that hotlinked URLs can fail, which adds real decision value.

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 does state a specific verb+resource: "Remove background from image." That is clearly distinct from siblings like ai_image_editor_create_image or ai_clothes_changer_create_image. However, the actual purpose statement is buried at the very end beneath a large generic guidance block, which weakens how quickly an agent identifies what this tool does.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives concrete operational guidance: the job is async, use wait_for_image_project with the returned id or poll GET /v1/image-projects/{id} until complete/error/canceled, and for *_file_path prefer the upload-URL endpoint when unsure. It never explicitly states when NOT to use this tool versus a sibling editor, but the workflow routing is clear.

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

All Magic Hour tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?