CineFlow Studio

cineflow_generate_launcher

Generates a supervised ComfyUI launch script with VRAM flags matched to the user's GPU profile, so CineFlow Studio can start ComfyUI with suitable memory settings.

Instructions

Generate a supervised ComfyUI launch script (run_comfy_cineflow.sh or .bat) preconfigured with optimal VRAM flags for the user's GPU.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "cineflow_generate_launcher"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`profile`	No	VRAM profile override (e.g. 'rtx_24gb', 'rtx_16gb').
`comfy_dir`	No	Target ComfyUI directory.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 15, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the script is written to disk at comfy_dir or merely returned as content, whether an existing script is overwritten, what 'supervised' means in practice, or how the GPU flags are determined when no profile is given.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with the artifact named immediately and the differentiating qualifier ('optimal VRAM flags for the user's GPU') at the end. No filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-optional-parameter generator with no output schema, the description omits the key behavioral facts an agent needs: output destination, overwrite behavior, and return value. It is adequate to identify the tool but not to predict its side effects.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, and the baseline is 3. The description adds only light context by implying the profile parameter is an override of auto-detected GPU settings and that comfy_dir is the write target; no format or default details are added.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (generate) and resource (a ComfyUI launch script), names the concrete artifacts (run_comfy_cineflow.sh or .bat), and narrows scope with 'preconfigured with optimal VRAM flags.' It is clearly distinct from cineflow_generate_dependency_script by output type, though it does not explicitly contrast with that sibling.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No statement of when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., hardware profile must already exist), and no exclusions. The agent must infer that this is the tool for producing a launch script rather than a dependency script.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server