Retrieve model details like name, type, and path by specifying model name and type; returns null if not found. Requires COMFYUI_HOST.
Get info for a model by name and type. Returns name, type, path; null if not found. Requires COMFYUI_HOST.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Model filename (e.g. sd_xl_base_1.0.safetensors) | |
| type | Yes | Model type: checkpoint, lora, vae, controlnet, upscale, embedding, clip |
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 carries the behavioral burden, and it does disclose the return shape (name, type, path), the null-if-missing behavior, and the COMFYUI_HOST requirement. It does not state whether the lookup hits a live server, what happens on lookup errors, or confirm read-only semantics beyond the implied verb.
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?
Three short sentences, zero waste, with the operation and its return contract front-loaded. Each clause earns its place.
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?
No output schema exists, but the description supplies the return fields and the not-found case, and it flags the host prerequisite. For a simple two-parameter lookup, that covers nearly everything an agent needs, though error behavior is unstated.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the enum for type is fully documented, so the schema already does the work. The description adds nothing beyond "by name and type," giving the baseline 3.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("get info for a model by name and type") and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_models or check_model_exists, which is why 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description never says when to use this tool instead of check_model_exists, list_models, or get_workflow_models. There is no when/when-not guidance; only the "null if not found" nuance hints at usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.