adobe-firefly-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Adobe Firefly Remove Background

firefly_remove_background

Removes the background from a local image and saves the result. Specify the image path and optionally the output directory and number of images to save.

Instructions

Use Adobe Firefly's browser UI to remove the background from a local image and save the result.

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": {
      "imagePath": "<imagePath>"
    },
    "name": "firefly_remove_background"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`count`	No	Maximum images to save.
`imagePath`	Yes	Local source image path. Relative paths resolve from the server cwd.
`outputDir`	No	Optional output directory.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 14, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states 'use Adobe Firefly's browser UI' and 'save the result' but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether the original file is modified, if network calls are made, or if the browser stays open). Minimal behavioral info.

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?

Extremely concise—only one sentence. Front-loaded with action and resource. However, it could benefit from a slight structure break (e.g., separate outcome) but not necessary for this simple tool.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The tool has 3 parameters and no output schema or annotations. The description omits what happens to the output (where it's saved, format), error handling, or prerequisites (e.g., Firefly UI availability). Incomplete for a task with moderate complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool removes background from a local image and saves the result, which distinguishes it from generation or variation tools. However, mentioning 'browser UI' is slightly ambiguous—does it mean headless automation or user-facing? Still, the verb and resource are specific.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like firefly_generate or firefly_variations. No alternatives or exclusions mentioned. The description implies a generic use case without context.

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

Deploy Server