server_statusCheck whether ComfyUI is running and report its queue, free memory, and loaded models so you can confirm service health before generating images.
Report whether ComfyUI is up, its queue, free memory and whether models are loaded
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 behavioral burden. 'Report' strongly implies a read-only operation, and the listed checks (up status, queue, memory, model loading) add useful scope, but there is no explicit statement that the tool is non-mutating, has no side effects, or has no auth/rate-limit constraints.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause maps to a concrete status signal the tool reports.
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 zero-parameter status tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it lists the core status dimensions an agent would need before invoking it. It falls short only by omitting explicit read-only/no-side-effect context, which matters because no annotations are present.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not discuss parameter semantics, and there is nothing missing because no inputs exist.
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 states a specific verb ('Report') and resource (ComfyUI server status), and enumerates the exact signals returned: uptime, queue, free memory, and loaded-model status. It is clearly distinguishable from the action-oriented siblings such as generate_image and unload_models, though it does not explicitly name or contrast them.
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 description explains what the tool reports but gives no explicit guidance on when to call it, when not to call it, or which sibling to use instead. An agent can infer that this is a health-check tool, but that inference is not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.