AetherWave Studio

Remove background from video

aetherwave_remove_background_video

Strips the background from a video frame-by-frame using rembg (u2netp) on AetherWave's Python service. Pass a public videoUrl. Choose bgType: "transparent" for an alpha-channel WebM output (compositing) or bgType: "color" with a customColor hex for a solid replacement. 2 credits per second. Slowest tool in the surface (per-frame processing); a 6s clip takes ~4 min, a 30s clip ~15-20 min. Works best on subjects with clear edges (people, products). Returns the processed video URL (R2-hosted).

Returns within ~45 s. If the result has state "running" the job is still rendering: poll aetherwave_get_job with the returned taskId and kind every ~10 s. Pass wait:true ONLY if your MCP client permits tool calls longer than 60 s (most do not). Pass async:true to get the taskId back immediately without waiting.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`wait`	No	Block until the job finishes (up to the tool's full budget, 6-15 minutes). ONLY if your MCP client permits tool calls longer than 60 s; most abandon the call at 60 s and lose the taskId. Default false: return within ~45 s and hand back a taskId if still running.
`async`	No	Submit and return the taskId immediately without polling at all. Then poll aetherwave_get_job(taskId, kind).
`bgType`	No	'transparent' = alpha WebM output (default). 'color' = solid replacement using customColor.
`videoUrl`	Yes	Public URL of the source video (MP4).
`customColor`	No	Hex color for solid background when bgType='color' (e.g. '#00ff00'). Default green.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 1, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / async

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Submit and return the taskId immediately without polling at all. Then poll aetherwave_get_job(taskId, kind).",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / wait

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Block until the job finishes (up to the tool's full budget, 6-15 minutes). ONLY if your MCP client permits tool calls longer than 60 s; most abandon the call at 60 s and lose the taskId. Default false: return within ~45 s and hand back a taskId if still running.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

First observedJun 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing cost (2 credits/second), runtime expectations (6s ~4 min, 30s ~15-20 min), that it is the slowest tool in the surface, return format (R2-hosted URL), subject-matter limits (clear edges), and the exact polling fallback with kind/taskId. The openWorld/non-idempotent hints are supplemented, not repeated.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: capability, then modes, then cost/runtime, then return/polling mechanics. Slight redundancy where the wait/async behavior is restated relative to the schema descriptions, but every sentence carries actionable information.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no output schema, the description fully covers the return contract (processed video URL, taskId + kind, running state) and the async/polling workflow, so an agent has everything needed to invoke and follow up correctly.

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 schema already documents every parameter; nevertheless the description adds interpretive value (public videoUrl, transparent vs color semantics, customColor hex default green) beyond the raw field docs.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('strips the background from a video frame-by-frame'), names the underlying model (rembg u2netp) and the service, and is clearly distinguishable from the sibling aetherwave_remove_background (image variant) by the video scope. An agent can select it without opening any schema.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use guidance for the two bgType modes (transparent for compositing, color with customColor for solid replacement) and for the wait/async/poll decision, including the 60s client-timeout caveat. It does not explicitly compare itself against the sibling image-removal tool, so it falls just short of 5.

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

All AetherWave Studio 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?