Skip to main content
Glama

remove_background

Remove backgrounds from product photos using alpha matting to create transparent PNG or WEBP cutouts for catalogs and listings.

Instructions

Execute sub-second alpha matting (BiRefNet/U-2-Net) on a product photo to produce a clean, transparent PNG cutout.

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": {
      "image_url": "<image_url>"
    },
    "name": "remove_background"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
image_urlYesPublic HTTP/HTTPS URL of the product or subject to isolate.
output_formatNoOutput file format. Defaults to PNG.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden; it usefully names the models (BiRefNet/U-2-Net), a sub-second speed expectation, and the cutout output. However, it omits how the result is returned (URL vs. binary payload), failure behavior for unreachable images, and whether the WEBP path preserves transparency, and it says 'transparent PNG' while the schema allows WEBP.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with the output artifact stated up front and no filler. The parenthetical model names add useful technical specificity at negligible length cost.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple two-parameter tool this is nearly adequate, and the model/speed detail is a plus. But with no output schema and no annotations, the description should say what comes back (image URL, base64, or file reference) and clarify output_format behavior, which it does not.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds no format or syntax detail and mentions only PNG, never acknowledging the WEBP option exposed by output_format.

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?

States a specific verb and effect ('alpha matting' producing a 'transparent PNG cutout') on a specific input ('product photo'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like generate_image or batch_render_catalog, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites such as accessible public URLs, and no routing to alternatives like batch_render_catalog for multi-image work. Only the phrase 'product photo' implies intended context.

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