Skip to main content
Glama

Magic Hour

by io.github.magichourhq

image_background_remover_create_image

Remove background from image. Each image costs 5 credits.

MCP guidance:

  • This starts an async image generation job and returns id plus credits_charged immediately. If the user wants the finished result, call the wait_for_image_project helper with the returned id, or poll the matching GET /v1/image-projects/{id} endpoint until status is complete, error, or canceled. Completed projects include downloads with direct URLs. The custom wait helper also returns exact_download_urls separately from expiration metadata.

  • For *_file_path values, prefer an existing Magic Hour file path or a file_path returned by the upload-URL endpoint after the file bytes are uploaded. Direct public media URLs may work when they are stable, fetchable, and return raw file bytes, but hotlinked URLs can fail; when in doubt, use the presigned upload flow first and pass the returned file_path.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoGive your image a custom name for easy identification.Background Remover - dateTime
assetsYesProvide the assets for background removal

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesUnique ID of the image. Use it with the [Get image Project API](https://docs.magichour.ai/api-reference/image-projects/get-image-details) to fetch status and downloads.
credits_chargedYesThe amount of credits deducted from your account to generate the image. We charge credits right when the request is made. If an error occurred while generating the image(s), credits will be refunded and this field will be updated to include the refund.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does so excellently: it states the tool is async, returns id and credits_charged immediately, requires polling or a wait helper, lists possible statuses, mentions downloads and exact_download_urls, explains credit cost, and warns about file path constraints.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and cost, followed by well-organized MCP guidance bullets. Every sentence contributes useful operational information, and nothing feels redundant or wasted.

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?

The description gives an agent everything needed to call the tool and follow through: async behavior, cost, the wait helper to use, polling endpoint, status values, download URLs, and file upload constraints. This is complete for a tool with nested assets and an output schema.

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?

The input schema already covers both parameters at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value by clarifying preferred file_path sources, warning about hotlinked URLs, and recommending the presigned upload flow. This extra guidance justifies a 4.

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 resource: 'Remove background from image.' This clearly states the tool's function and is not a tautology. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools or name what it is not, so it falls short of the top score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The intended use is implied by the one-line purpose and the tool name, so an agent can infer when to use it. However, the description offers no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or comparison against alternatives such as ai_image_editor or photo_colorizer.

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

All Magic Hour toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most generation tools target distinct media types or effects (e.g., clothes changer, head swap, lip sync), but several boundaries blur: ai_image_editor_create_image is a generic edit tool that overlaps conceptually with ai_face_editor_edit_image, ai_image_upscaler_create_image, and background remover. The wait_for_*_project helpers also overlap functionally with the *_projects_retrieve_details status tools, and ai_voice_cloner_create_audio vs. ai_voice_generator_create_audio are easy to confuse by name.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are mixed: many tools follow ai_<product>_create_<media>, but others are product-first (animation_create_video, body_swap_create_image) and resource-group tools follow a different noun_verb pattern (audio_projects_retrieve_details, video_projects_delete). Verbs are inconsistent too (create_image, edit_image, detect_faces, retrieve_details, wait_for, fetch), so an agent cannot reliably predict the next tool name.

Tool Count2/5

At 44 tools, the set is heavy: it includes 27 generation tools plus three wait helpers, three status retrieval tools, three delete tools, three fetch helpers, and upload/ping utilities. While the underlying product is broad, many helpers could be consolidated, and the overall surface exceeds the range where each tool earns a clear place.

Completeness3/5

The lifecycle is mostly covered for image, video, and audio projects: create, poll/retrieve, fetch download, delete, and file upload/presigned-URL generation are all present. However, there is no project listing or cancel operation, and face detection only has detect/details with no delete or wait helper, leaving some workflow gaps an agent must work around.

Resources