Creates a new empty workflow context and returns a workflow_id for building ComfyUI workflows with add_node, connect_nodes, validate_workflow, and execute_workflow.
Create a new empty workflow context. Returns workflow_id to use with add_node, connect_nodes, get_workflow_json, validate_workflow, finalize_workflow, execute_workflow.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return value and the downstream usage chain, but it does not explain whether the empty workflow context is persisted, whether cleanup is required, or what side effects occur on the server.
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?
Two sentences, both front-loaded and free of waste. The first states what the tool does; the second states the return value and immediately useful downstream tools.
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 zero-parameter initialization tool without an output schema or annotations, the description is nearly complete: it states the creation of an empty context, the returned workflow_id, and the follow-up tools. It could say more about persistence or lifecycle, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.
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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately does not invent parameter details.
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?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new empty workflow context.' It distinguishes this initialization step from the many sibling workflow tools by stating it returns a workflow_id for use with add_node, connect_nodes, get_workflow_json, validate_workflow, finalize_workflow, and execute_workflow.
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 description clearly situates the tool as the first step in a workflow-building sequence by naming the downstream tools that consume its returned workflow_id. It does not explicitly compare create_workflow with build_workflow or build_restyle_workflow, but the initialization framing makes its intended role clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.