Fotor

Submit Audio Separation Task

submit_audio_separation_task

Destructive

Separates vocals and accompaniment. Returns a ZIP archive when completed; download and extraction are separate steps. May consume existing Fotor credits. Waits for the upstream response and returns the task ID with the completed result when available. If the task is still processing, use get_task to check its status once. This tool does not poll for completion. Repeating the request may create another task and consume additional credits. Do not automatically retry when the submission outcome is uncertain. This tool does not purchase credits or initiate a checkout flow.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "audio_url": "<audio_url>"
    },
    "name": "submit_audio_separation_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`audio_url`	Yes	Accessible HTTPS reference audio URL.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`error`	No	Stable failure code; null when no failure is reported.
`status`	Yes	Observed task state. processing does not distinguish queued or running; unknown is an unrecognized upstream state.
`task_id`	Yes	Fotor task ID for get_task.
`model_id`	Yes	Model ID used for this task.
`task_type`	Yes	Audio operation performed.
`media_type`	No	Generated media category.	audio
`result_url`	No	Completed output URL; availability is not guaranteed permanently. Audio output may be MP3 or ZIP.
`is_terminal`	Yes	Whether the task has completed, failed, timed out or been cancelled.
`result_format`	No	Completed file format: mp3 audio or zip archive; null until completed.
`failure_reason`	No	Safe failure summary; may be generic rather than the upstream root cause.
`credits_increment`	No	Reported task credit cost; not an additional charge on each query. Null if unavailable.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructive, non-idempotent, openWorld) by disclosing concrete consequences: may consume Fotor credits, repeats create new tasks and consume more credits, output is a ZIP requiring separate download/extraction, and it does not initiate checkout. This is exactly the credit/duplication risk an agent needs to know before calling.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then the return shape, then the safety constraints in roughly priority order. Some sentences are dense and repetitive around credits/retries, but each carries a distinct operational warning.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still correctly frames the result as a task ID plus eventual ZIP artifact, and covers the async/no-poll contract and credit side effects. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly is absent.

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?

Only one parameter (audio_url) with 100% schema coverage already describing it as an accessible HTTPS URL. The description adds no format, size, or content constraints beyond the schema, so 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and effect — 'Separates vocals and accompaniment' — which is concrete enough that an agent can tell this apart from generic submit tools. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the nearest siblings (submit_audio_track_task, submit_song_edit_task), so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 explicit routing guidance: use get_task once if still processing, do not poll, do not auto-retry when outcome is uncertain. What's missing is naming an alternative sibling (e.g. song edit vs. separation) for closely related audio operations.

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

All Fotor 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?