server_status

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 a significant behavioral trait: 'this MCP always queues behind it,' indicating that calls to this tool will queue behind any running job on the server. It also clarifies the read-only nature of checking status (reachability, version, memory, queue), with no destructive actions implied. This goes beyond a generic 'check status' statement and provides useful operational context.

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?

The description is a single, information-dense sentence that leads with the action ('Check the ComfyUI server:') and then lists the specific check items. The queueing behavior is added as a parenthetical note, keeping the structure compact without redundancy. Every part earns its place.

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 tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description fully captures what the agent needs to understand before calling it: what can be checked, what the queueing behavior is, and implicitly that it is a non-destructive status probe. Nothing critical is missing; the output schema covers return values, so the description need not explain them.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema is complete (coverage 100%). Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4, and the description does not need to add any parameter semantics. There is nothing missing or ambiguous about parameters.

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 ('Check') and a clear resource ('ComfyUI server'), then enumerates the exact things checked (reachability, version, GPU memory, queue length, and whether someone else's job is running). This makes it unambiguous what the tool does and naturally distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_image or job_status, even though no sibling is named.

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 implies usage – an agent would infer that this is for checking server status before or during operations – but it does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives. There is no mention of 'use this to verify server health before submitting a job' or any exclusions. The queueing behavior hints at a practical consideration, but the when-to-use guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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