ComfyUI MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap between get_template and get_template_dsl, as both retrieve template details, which could cause confusion. However, descriptions clarify that get_template provides metadata while get_template_dsl focuses on DSL content, helping to differentiate them.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case, such as execute_workflow, list_templates, and validate_workflow. This predictability makes the set easy to navigate and understand.
Tool Count4/5
With 16 tools, the count is slightly high but reasonable for a ComfyUI server covering workflow execution, template management, and file operations. It feels comprehensive without being overwhelming, though some tools like get_template and get_template_dsl could potentially be consolidated.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides complete coverage for the domain, including workflow execution (execute_workflow), status tracking (get_job_status), template handling (list_templates, generate_from_template), file operations (read_workflow, write_workflow), and validation (validate_workflow). There are no obvious gaps for core ComfyUI operations.
Average 3.9/5 across 16 of 16 tools scored. Lowest: 3.1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the source (official Comfy-Org repository) and format (DSL), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'synced' entails. The description adds some context but lacks critical operational details.
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?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. The 'Returns' and 'Examples' sections add value without redundancy. However, the example 'list_official_templates()' is somewhat redundant with the name, slightly reducing efficiency.
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?
Given 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It explains what the tool does and the source/format, but as a list operation with no annotations, it should more explicitly state it's a read-only fetch and clarify the return structure beyond 'metadata', despite the output schema covering details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it correctly indicates no inputs are required by including an example with empty parentheses. No additional parameter semantics are needed or provided.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'official ComfyUI templates', specifying they come from the official Comfy-Org repository and are synced/converted to DSL format. It distinguishes from generic 'list_templates' by focusing on official ones, though doesn't explicitly contrast with 'search_templates' or other siblings.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_templates' or 'search_templates'. The description implies it's for official templates only, but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. It's left to the agent to infer context from sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'fuzzy search' which implies approximate matching behavior, but doesn't cover other important aspects like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what 'matching templates' includes in the return. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
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?
The description is well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, adds behavioral context in the second sentence, then provides arg/return documentation and examples. Every sentence adds value, though the examples could be slightly more concise. It's front-loaded with essential information.
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?
Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values) and only one parameter with good semantic explanation in the description, the description is moderately complete. However, with no annotations and multiple sibling tools, it should provide more behavioral context and usage differentiation. The examples help but don't fully compensate for the missing guidance on when to use this versus other template-related tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates well by explaining the 'query' parameter's purpose: 'Search query (searches name, description, tags).' This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, clarifying what fields the query targets. However, it doesn't detail query syntax, case sensitivity, or fuzzy matching rules, keeping it from a perfect score.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search templates by name, description, or tags' and 'Performs fuzzy search across template metadata to find relevant workflow templates.' This specifies the verb (search), resource (templates), and scope (metadata fields). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_templates' or 'list_official_templates,' which likely have different filtering mechanisms.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools related to templates (get_template, list_templates, list_official_templates), there's no indication of when this fuzzy search is preferred over listing or retrieving specific templates. The examples show usage but don't explain context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool 'parses DSL and extracts structural information' and doesn't execute, which is useful. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or what happens with invalid DSL. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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?
The description is well-structured and concise: it starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by behavioral details, then lists args and returns with brief explanations, and ends with an example. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it's front-loaded with key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (analyzing workflow structure), no annotations, and an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, behavior, parameters, and returns, though it could benefit from more behavioral context like error cases or performance notes. The output schema likely handles return details, reducing the burden on the description.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description adds value by explaining 'dsl: Workflow content in DSL format', giving basic semantics. However, it doesn't specify the DSL format, constraints, or examples beyond the generic example, leaving room for ambiguity. With 1 parameter and low schema coverage, this is a minimal but adequate explanation.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Analyze workflow structure and return metadata' with specific verbs ('analyze', 'parses', 'extracts') and resources ('workflow structure', 'DSL'). It distinguishes from siblings like execute_workflow (which runs workflows) and read_workflow (which likely reads raw content), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from validate_workflow or get_template_dsl, which might have overlapping analysis functions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context: 'without executing the workflow' suggests this is for inspection rather than execution, distinguishing it from execute_workflow. However, it doesn't provide explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives like validate_workflow (which might also analyze structure) or get_template_dsl (which might return DSL content), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions that templates 'provide ready-to-use workflows' and returns 'List of template metadata', but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or whether it's read-only. For a list tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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?
Well-structured with purpose statement, usage context, parameter details, return info, and examples. Each section adds value, though it could be slightly more front-loaded by moving examples later. Overall efficient with minimal waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and an output schema exists (so return values don't need explanation), the description provides good coverage: purpose, parameters with examples, and return type. It could improve by addressing sibling differentiation and more behavioral context, but it's largely complete for a list tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully documents all 3 parameters (category, difficulty, tag) with clear explanations and examples, adding substantial meaning beyond the bare schema. This effectively bridges the coverage gap.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List available workflow templates' with the specific verb 'List' and resource 'workflow templates'. It distinguishes from some siblings like 'get_template' (singular) and 'search_templates' (search vs list), though not explicitly. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from 'list_official_templates' which seems similar.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides implied usage through examples and parameter explanations, suggesting when to use filters like category or difficulty. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'search_templates' or 'list_official_templates', and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool discovers files and supports glob patterns, but lacks details on permissions needed, error handling (e.g., invalid directory), rate limits, or whether it's a read-only operation (implied by 'list' but not explicit). Some behavioral context is given, but gaps remain for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by details on discovery, filtering, args, returns, and examples. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the bullet-like formatting enhances readability while maintaining brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description does a solid job: it explains the tool's purpose, parameters, return values, and includes examples. Since an output schema exists (context signals indicate true), it doesn't need to detail return structure extensively. However, for a file-listing tool, it could mention pagination or sorting behavior, but overall it's fairly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context: 'directory' is where to search with a default, and 'pattern' is a glob filter with a default. This clarifies beyond the schema's basic string types, though it doesn't detail glob syntax or directory path requirements. With 0% schema coverage, this is good but not exhaustive.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List workflow files in a directory' with specific file types (.json and .dsl). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_templates' or 'list_official_templates' by focusing on workflow files, but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_workflow_info' or 'read_workflow' which might retrieve individual workflows.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when needing to discover workflow files with optional filtering via glob patterns. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'list_templates' (for templates) or 'get_workflow_info' (for detailed info on a specific workflow), leaving some ambiguity in sibling tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool retrieves information (implying read-only) and lists what's included (parameters, requirements, DSL preview), but doesn't disclose behavioral aspects like error handling, authentication needs, rate limits, or response format details beyond the high-level 'Template details'.
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?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by sections for Args, Returns, and Examples. Every sentence earns its place—no fluff or repetition—making it easy to scan and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, read operation) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, parameter meaning, and examples, but could improve by addressing behavioral transparency gaps like error cases or usage guidelines vs. siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates well by explaining the single parameter 'template_name' as 'Name of the template to retrieve' and providing concrete examples. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail constraints like format or length.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Get detailed information about a specific template') and resource ('template'), distinguishing it from siblings like list_templates (which lists multiple) or get_template_dsl (which focuses only on DSL). The verb 'retrieves' is precise and the scope is well-defined.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when detailed template info is needed, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like list_templates (for overview) or get_template_dsl (for DSL only). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity in tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves DSL content and metadata, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or whether the operation is idempotent. For a read operation with no annotations, this is adequate but leaves gaps in behavioral understanding.
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?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear sections for Args, Returns, and Examples. Each sentence earns its place: the first states what it does, the second explains the use case, and the structured sections provide actionable details without redundancy. It's efficiently sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (so return values are documented elsewhere), no annotations, and moderate complexity with 2 parameters, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and usage context. However, for a tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, it could better address behavioral aspects like error handling or performance characteristics to be fully comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining template_name as 'Name of the template' and source with its possible values ('custom', 'official', or 'auto'), which clarifies beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't detail format constraints for template_name or the implications of 'auto' vs. explicit sources, leaving some semantic gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'DSL content for any template', specifying both custom and official templates. It distinguishes from siblings like get_template (likely returns different metadata), list_templates (lists rather than retrieves content), and execute_workflow (executes rather than retrieves). The purpose is specific and well-differentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving DSL content that can be modified or executed, suggesting it's a precursor to tools like generate_from_template or write_workflow. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like get_template (which might return different data) or read_workflow (which might handle workflows vs. templates). No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool's read-only nature (list/shows) and scope (running and pending jobs), but doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, or error conditions. The behavioral disclosure is adequate but minimal.
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?
The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement, brief elaboration, and well-organized sections for Args, Returns, and Examples. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and information is appropriately front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (queue listing), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, parameter meaning, and examples, though could benefit from more behavioral context about limitations or edge cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates well by explaining the single parameter's purpose ('ComfyUI server address') and providing examples with default and explicit values. For a tool with only one optional parameter, this provides sufficient semantic context beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific verb 'List' and resource 'current ComfyUI execution queue', with additional detail about 'running and pending jobs'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_job_status (single job) and list_workflows (workflow definitions).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when needing queue status, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like get_job_status for specific job details or execute_workflow for queueing new jobs. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool writes to disk and converts formats, but lacks details on permissions, error handling, or side effects. It adds some context (e.g., default format) but is incomplete for a mutation tool.
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?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by concise sections for args, returns, and examples. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (mutation with 3 params, no annotations) and an output schema (implied by 'Returns' statement), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and output, but could improve by addressing behavioral aspects like error cases or dependencies.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains all three parameters ('filepath', 'dsl', 'format') with meanings, default values, and options, adding significant value beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't detail constraints like filepath formats or DSL syntax.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Write a workflow to disk') with the resource ('workflow') and distinguishes it from siblings like 'read_workflow' and 'execute_workflow'. It specifies the transformation from DSL content to disk files, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by mentioning default behavior (converts to JSON) and an optional format, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'read_workflow' or 'execute_workflow'. It provides basic context without exclusions or clear alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: it downloads from GitHub, processes templates, converts to DSL, and returns sync status with counts. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it overwrites existing templates. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist).
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?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by details on processing and returns, and includes an example. It's appropriately sized, but the 'Examples:' section is redundant since it mirrors the tool name without parameters, slightly reducing efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 0 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema exists (implied by 'Returns:'), the description is fairly complete. It explains what the tool does, the transformation involved, and the return value. However, it could improve by mentioning potential side effects (e.g., overwriting) or dependencies, but the output schema likely covers return details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, but it correctly notes no parameters in the example 'sync_official_templates()'. Baseline for 0 params is 4, as it adequately handles the lack of inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('sync official ComfyUI templates from GitHub'), resource ('official workflow templates'), and transformation ('converts them to DSL format'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'list_official_templates' (which likely only lists) and 'get_template_dsl' (which retrieves existing DSL).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by stating it 'syncs official templates from GitHub' and 'converts them to DSL format for use with the template system,' suggesting it's for initial setup or updates. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'list_official_templates' or prerequisites (e.g., internet connectivity).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior: it validates parameters and returns detailed results with errors and warnings. However, it does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, side effects, or what constitutes 'valid' parameters. The description adds basic context but lacks depth for a validation tool with no annotation coverage.
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?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, args, returns, examples) and uses only essential sentences. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Minor improvements could include merging or trimming some lines, but overall it is efficient and easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, parameters, returns, and includes an example. However, for a validation tool, more details on error formats or validation rules would enhance completeness, though the output schema may cover return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains both parameters: 'template_name' as the name of the template and 'parameters' as a dictionary to validate. The example illustrates usage but does not detail parameter formats or constraints. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though not exhaustively.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('validate parameters for a template without generating'), identifies the resource ('template'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'generate_from_template' (which would generate) and 'validate_workflow' (which validates workflows, not template parameters). The phrase 'without generating' explicitly differentiates it from generation tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: to check parameter validity before generation. It implies an alternative ('generate_from_template') but does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or compare with other validation tools like 'validate_workflow'. The guidance is helpful but lacks explicit exclusions or detailed comparisons.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: conversion of DSL to JSON, submission to ComfyUI, optional waiting for completion, and timeout handling. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if the server is unreachable, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.
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?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear sections for Args, Returns, and Examples. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the examples efficiently illustrate common usage patterns.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (execution with 4 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema present (which handles return values), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and basic behavior, but could improve by addressing error cases or prerequisites, though the output schema reduces the need for return value details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for all 4 parameters: 'dsl' as workflow content in DSL format, 'server_address' with default and purpose, 'wait_for_completion' as a boolean flag, and 'timeout_seconds' as maximum wait time. This effectively explains parameter roles beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Execute a DSL workflow on ComfyUI server') and distinguishes it from siblings like 'validate_workflow' or 'get_job_status' by emphasizing execution rather than validation or status checking. It specifies the resource (DSL workflow) and the target system (ComfyUI server).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context through examples and parameter defaults (e.g., local server address, waiting for completion), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_job_status' for checking status or 'validate_workflow' for validation. It provides clear operational context but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that it 'creates a complete DSL workflow' and 'optionally saves to file', indicating mutation behavior and file system interaction. However, it doesn't mention permissions needed, error conditions, rate limits, or what happens if save_path conflicts with existing files.
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?
The description is well-structured with a clear opening sentence, organized Args and Returns sections, and practical examples. Every sentence adds value—no fluff or repetition. It's appropriately sized for a 3-parameter tool with complex functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description does a good job explaining parameters and purpose. The presence of an output schema means it doesn't need to detail return values. However, for a mutation tool that interacts with file systems, more behavioral context (e.g., error handling, idempotency) would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantic explanations for all 3 parameters: template_name (name of template), parameters (dictionary for substitution), and save_path (optional save location). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail parameter formats or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Generate a workflow from a template with custom parameters') and distinguishes it from siblings like get_template (which retrieves) or write_workflow (which writes raw content). It specifies the resource (workflow) and method (substituting parameters into template).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for creating workflows from templates, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like write_workflow (for manual creation) or validate_template_parameters (for checking parameters first). It provides context through examples but lacks explicit 'when-not' guidance or named alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's a read operation (no mutation implied), it can download images to a specific directory, and it returns status with image paths. However, it lacks details on error handling (e.g., invalid prompt_id), rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it modifies server state (e.g., by downloading).
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?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by specific functionality. The Args/Returns/Examples sections are organized efficiently with no wasted sentences. Each part adds value, such as clarifying parameter relationships and providing usage examples.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage and an output schema (implied by 'Returns'), the description is mostly complete. It explains all parameters and the return value ('Job status with completion info and image paths'). However, for a job status tool with no annotations, it could better cover edge cases (e.g., job failures, timeouts) or server interaction details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for all 4 parameters: 'prompt_id' is linked to 'execute_workflow', 'server_address' is implied as ComfyUI server, 'download_images' controls image retrieval, and 'image_save_path' specifies directory relative to 'workflows/'. This goes beyond schema types, though it doesn't detail formats (e.g., prompt_id structure).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get status and results', 'Checks execution status', 'download generated images') and identifies the resource ('ComfyUI job'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'execute_workflow' (which creates jobs) and 'list_comfyui_queue' (which lists queued jobs) by focusing on status retrieval for specific jobs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: after 'execute_workflow' returns a prompt_id, to check job completion and optionally download results. It mentions the sibling 'execute_workflow' as the source of prompt_id. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or compare with alternatives like 'list_comfyui_queue' for broader status checks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: automatic format detection, transparent JSON-to-DSL conversion, and file format support (.json or .dsl). However, it doesn't mention error handling, file size limits, or authentication requirements.
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?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, format support, Args, Returns, Examples). Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. The front-loaded purpose statement immediately communicates core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description does well by explaining parameter semantics, return format, and behavioral aspects. Since an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to detail return values. The main gap is lack of error/edge-case handling information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantics for the single parameter 'filepath' including purpose ('Path to workflow file'), supported extensions (.json or .dsl), and examples. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Read a workflow file'), the resource ('workflow file'), and the output format ('return it as DSL format'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_workflow_info' (which likely provides metadata) and 'write_workflow' (which creates/modifies).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by mentioning support for both JSON and DSL input files, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_workflow_info' or 'validate_workflow'. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance or prerequisite context is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's a read-only validation (no execution), returns validation status and errors, and checks syntax. However, it does not mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with invalid input beyond errors, leaving some gaps.
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?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose, followed by behavior, args, returns, and an example. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (validation without execution), no annotations, and an output schema (which covers return values), the description is mostly complete. It explains purpose, usage, and parameters adequately, but could benefit from more behavioral details like error handling or prerequisites to be fully comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage. It explains that the 'dsl' parameter is 'Workflow content in DSL format,' providing context not in the schema. With only one parameter, this is sufficient to compensate for the low schema coverage, though more details on DSL format could enhance it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('validate') and resource ('DSL workflow syntax'), distinguishing it from siblings like execute_workflow (which executes) or read_workflow (which reads). It explicitly mentions parsing DSL and checking for syntax errors without execution, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: to validate workflow syntax before execution, as implied by 'without executing the workflow.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., validate_template_parameters for templates), so it lacks full exclusion guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![comfy-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/christian-byrne/comfy-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/christian-byrne/comfy-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![comfy-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/christian-byrne/comfy-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/christian-byrne/comfy-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/christian-byrne/comfy-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server