List all output files (images, gifs) for a completed prompt. Returns filenames, types, and URLs to access generated results.
List all output files (images, gifs) for a completed prompt. Returns prompt_id, node_id, type, filename, url. Requires COMFYUI_HOST.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| prompt_id | Yes | Prompt id from execute_workflow or execute_workflow_sync |
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 burden. It does add real value by disclosing the returned fields (prompt_id, node_id, type, filename, url) and the COMFYUI_HOST dependency. However, it does not say what happens for an incomplete or unknown prompt_id, nor whether results are paginated or cached.
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, front-loaded sentences: purpose, return shape, prerequisite. Nothing redundant and the most important information comes first.
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, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and it flags the environment prerequisite. Completeness is good for a simple one-parameter list tool; only edge-case behavior (empty results, invalid prompt_id) 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?
Only one parameter exists and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema itself explaining the prompt_id source (execute_workflow or execute_workflow_sync). The description adds no format or lineage detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
Specific verb+resource with a clear scope qualifier: 'List all output files (images, gifs) for a completed prompt.' An agent can tell this apart from download_output or get_last_output by the 'list' vs 'download/get' distinction, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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 phrase 'for a completed prompt' implies usage after an execution finishes, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no pointer to download_output or download_all_outputs as the follow-up step. The agent must infer the workflow position.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.