Retrieves the parameter schema for a specific ComfyUI workflow, including required/optional inputs, types, defaults, and available options so agents can build valid workflow requests.
Get the parameter schema for a specific workflow, including required/optional parameters, types, defaults, and available options.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| workflow_id | Yes | The workflow ID (e.g., "qwen-lightning-4step", "minimax-h3-i2v-fast") |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden; it does disclose the shape of the returned data (parameters, types, defaults, options), which is the most useful behavioral fact. It says nothing about whether the call is read-only/safe, whether it errors on an unknown workflow_id, or whether the schema comes from a live registry or a static catalog.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the return contents enumerated inline. Nothing wasted and nothing buried.
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 one-parameter read-only introspection tool with no output schema, disclosing the return payload is exactly the right compensation, and it's present here. The gap is the missing relationship to run_workflow, which is what makes this tool actionable in the surrounding toolset.
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?
With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage (including example workflow IDs), the schema already fully documents workflow_id. The phrase 'for a specific workflow' adds no semantics beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('Get the parameter schema for a specific workflow') and enumerates what the schema contains (required/optional, types, defaults, options). It's clear on its own, but never names or contrasts itself against the obvious sibling run_workflow, which is the main thing an agent needs to disambiguate discovery from execution.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is a discovery/metadata call, but the description never says to call it before run_workflow or in what circumstances it's preferable to just invoking. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.