Configure pedit's ComfyUI URL and select its checkpoint or upscaler. Call without arguments to view current settings.
Point pedit at a ComfyUI and choose its checkpoint/upscaler. Without args: current settings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cfg | No | ||
| url | No | ||
| steps | No | ||
| upscaler | No | ||
| checkpoint | No |
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 full burden. It usefully discloses the dual read/write nature via the bare-call returning current settings, implying that supplying args mutates configuration. It omits persistence semantics, whether changes take effect immediately, error behavior if the URL is unreachable, and any auth requirements.
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?
Two tight sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded and the edge-case behavior trailing. No filler, though the extreme brevity contributes to the coverage gaps noted elsewhere rather than being purely a strength.
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?
A five-parameter configuration tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage needs a much richer description than one sentence. Missing are what the call returns when args are supplied, whether the URL is required for any operation, and units/meaning for cfg and steps.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It loosely implies the url ('point pedit at a ComfyUI') and names checkpoint/upscaler, but cfg and steps are never explained, leaving two parameters entirely undocumented anywhere.
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 identifies the resource (ComfyUI connection plus its checkpoint/upscaler settings) and an implicit verb (point/choose), so the tool's domain is discernible. However, jargon like 'Point pedit at a ComfyUI' is opaque and it never states plainly that this configures the AI backend, nor distinguishes itself from siblings like ai_services or upscale.
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?
'Without args: current settings' gives one concrete usage pattern (read-only when called bare), which is a real hint. But there is no guidance on when to use this versus the other AI/config siblings, no prerequisites (e.g. must a ComfyUI be running?), and no mention of when not to call it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.