CineFlow Studio

cineflow_installer_audit

Audit a local ComfyUI directory to identify installed versus missing HuggingFace model weights and calculate custom node readiness percentage before filmmaking workflows.

Instructions

Audit local ComfyUI installation, checking for installed vs missing model weights (HuggingFace) and custom nodes readiness percentage.

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_installer_audit"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`comfy_dir`	No	Path to local ComfyUI directory (default: 'ComfyUI').

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 15, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

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 discloses the inspection scope, but never says whether the HuggingFace check requires network access, whether anything on disk is written or cached, how long it takes, or what the "readiness percentage" output looks like — all material for an audit tool with zero structured safety hints.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and target come first and the checked items follow. The phrasing "custom nodes readiness percentage" is slightly compressed but still readable.

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 one-optional-param tool with no output schema, the description covers what is inspected and hints at the returned readiness percentage, which is reasonably complete. It still omits network requirements, side effects, and any sense of result structure, which leaves the agent guessing about the call's cost and safety.

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?

There is a single optional parameter at 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents comfy_dir. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is acceptable but not additive.

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 and resource ("Audit local ComfyUI installation") plus the exact scope of the audit: installed vs missing model weights and custom node readiness. This is far more specific than a sibling like cineflow_check_updates or cineflow_models_catalog, though it never names an alternative to sharpen the boundary.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is given. An agent can infer it is a pre-flight/diagnostic check, but nothing in the text says to run it before cineflow_download_model or cineflow_install_node, or that it should be skipped when the install state is already known.

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

Deploy Server