Retrieve a ComfyUI node's output types and names to wire workflows correctly, using live data when available or the built-in knowledge base otherwise.
Get output types and names for a node. Uses live ComfyUI if available, otherwise knowledge base.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node_name | Yes | Node class name (e.g. KSampler, CheckpointLoaderSimple) |
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 full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the data source fallback (live ComfyUI when available, otherwise knowledge base), but does not describe error behavior for unknown nodes, response format details, or freshness guarantees.
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 short sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the source fallback is stated immediately after.
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 simple one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately states what is returned (output types and names) and where the data comes from. Minor edge cases, such as unknown node handling, are not covered.
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 single parameter has 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already defines node_name with examples. The description only implies that the parameter identifies a node, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb and resource: get output types and names for a node. This is distinguishable from get_node_inputs by its focus on outputs, though it does not explicitly name or rule out sibling tools.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_node_info or get_node_inputs. The fallback note about live ComfyUI vs knowledge base is operational context, not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.