Find ComfyUI nodes by describing your task or specifying the output type they produce. Get relevant node suggestions for your workflow.
Suggest ComfyUI nodes for a task (search by description/use_cases) or by output type they produce.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input_type | No | Output type to match (e.g. MODEL, IMAGE, LATENT) | |
| task_description | No | Short task description (e.g. "load checkpoint", "decode latent") |
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 must carry behavioral context. 'Suggest' and 'search' imply a read-only discovery operation, but the description does not explicitly state read-only behavior, result ranking, limits, or what the suggestion output looks like.
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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose. It is efficient, though it could be structured slightly better to clarify the two modes.
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 two-parameter discovery tool, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should say more about return behavior and selection relative to sibling search tools.
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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description reinforces that task_description searches by description/use_cases and input_type matches output type, but adds little beyond the schema.
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 gives a specific verb ('Suggest'), resource ('ComfyUI nodes'), and two distinct modes: task/use-case text and output type. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not differentiate itself from siblings such as search_nodes or discover_nodes_live.
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?
It implies two usage modes (by task description/use_cases or by output type), but does not state when to prefer this over search_nodes, discover_nodes_live, or list_node_types. The usage is inferable but not explicitly guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.