Retrieves all node definitions, class names, and categories from a running ComfyUI instance so you can discover available nodes before building workflows.
Get all node definitions from the running ComfyUI instance (GET /object_info). Returns class names and categories. Requires ComfyUI to be running at COMFYUI_HOST.
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a live GET request against a running instance, identifies the endpoint, and states the returned content (class names and categories). The GET verb implies read-only behavior, and the running-instance requirement covers a key operational constraint, though failure modes and output shape details are not fully elaborated.
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?
The description is three compact sentences that front-load the core action, then the endpoint, then the return content and requirement. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition or filler.
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, live-read tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the key operational facts: it reads from a running instance, names the endpoint, and describes the returned data. It is nearly complete, though it could better distinguish itself from related node-listing tools and more precisely describe the output structure for an agent needing to interpret results.
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 and the input schema is empty with 100% coverage, so there is no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for zero parameters 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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Get all node definitions from the running ComfyUI instance' and even identifies the endpoint GET /object_info. It states what is returned (class names and categories), making the tool's function clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like list_node_types, list_node_categories, or get_node_info.
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 provides a prerequisite: 'Requires ComfyUI to be running at COMFYUI_HOST,' which is useful context. But it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_node_types, sync_nodes_to_knowledge, or search_nodes. Usage is only implied by the live-instance requirement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.