comfy_bazaarRead the active services agents are selling on the public bazaar floor, returned exactly as the engine serializes them for market and service discovery.
The public bazaar floor from the engine: the active services agents sell, exactly as the engine serializes them.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world access, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one behavioral note — the data is returned raw as the engine serializes it, i.e. unfiltered/un-normalized — but says nothing about volume, ordering, or freshness.
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?
One short sentence with no padding, and the key qualifier (public, active services) is placed up front. Nothing is 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?
With no output schema and no parameters, the description is the only place an agent can learn what comes back, and it defers with "exactly as the engine serializes them". It is complete enough to know this is a zero-arg read of a service listing, but not enough to anticipate the response shape.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema leaves nothing to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no filtering or paging inputs are needed.
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?
It conveys that the tool returns the active services that agents sell, but the framing is metaphorical ("public bazaar floor", "exactly as the engine serializes them") rather than a plain verb+resource statement like "List active services". An agent can guess it is a listing tool, but the domain jargon blurs what is actually returned.
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?
There is no statement of when to call this versus the many siblings (comfy_jobs, comfy_tokens, comfy_agent_compute, etc.) or when not to. The 'public' qualifier hints at a scope distinction but never names an alternative or condition.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.