remove_backgroundRemove the background from a public image URL and return a transparent PNG URL for clean cutouts and compositing.
Remove an image's background, return a transparent PNG URL. $0.03 USDC/call. Paid: calling without a payment payload returns a structured 402 with payment options — that response is the documented behavior, not a failure.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| image_url | Yes | Public image URL. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Input schema / properties / image_url / descriptionPrevious value: -"Public URL of the source image (JPEG, PNG, or WEBP). Must be accessible from the internet — local paths and data: URIs are not supported."New value: +"Public image URL."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which conveys little about a paid, non-mutating compute call. The description adds the price ($0.03 USDC/call) and pre-empts the most likely failure misread: a 402 without a payment payload is documented behavior, not an error. That is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the capability and result, then cost, then the payment caveat. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return value, cost, and the expected 402 path. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret both success and the unpaid response.
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?
Single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Public image URL'), so the schema does the work. The description adds only that the output is a transparent PNG URL, not anything about the input beyond what the schema states.
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 specific verb and resource ('Remove an image's background') and even the output ('transparent PNG URL'). No sibling tool in the catalog does image manipulation, so the description alone is enough to distinguish it.
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 payment clause effectively tells the agent how to invoke it correctly: without a payment payload you get a 402 rather than a result. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative, but none of the sibling tools overlaps with this capability.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.