Skip to main content
Glama
neutrinotek

ComfyUI MCP Server

by neutrinotek
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: list_models handles model enumeration, list_workflows lists workflow files, and read_workflow reads specific workflow content. There is no overlap or ambiguity between these functions, making tool selection straightforward for an agent.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case naming: list_models, list_workflows, and read_workflow. This uniformity makes the tool set predictable and easy to understand at a glance.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 3 tools, the server feels thin for a ComfyUI integration, which typically involves more operations like executing workflows, managing nodes, or handling images. While the tools are well-defined, the count is borderline low for the apparent scope of interacting with a workflow automation system.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool set has significant gaps for a ComfyUI server, missing core operations such as executing workflows, uploading or managing models, and handling generated outputs. This incomplete surface will likely cause agent failures when trying to perform typical ComfyUI tasks beyond basic listing and reading.

  • Average 3.1/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    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 status not available

  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions using 'object info endpoints' and the effect of 'recursive mode', but it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like (though an output schema exists). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 3 parameters.

    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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that directly address the tool's functionality and parameter usage without any wasted words. Every sentence adds value, making it efficient and well-structured.

    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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and an output schema exists, the description provides basic context on what the tool does and some parameter usage. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions or error handling, and does not fully explain all parameters, making it minimally adequate but with clear gaps.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters2/5

    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 the purpose of 'kind' (to get a flat list) and 'recursive' (to aggregate multiple kinds), adding some meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not cover the 'search' parameter at all, and the explanations are brief without details on allowed values or examples, failing to fully compensate for the low coverage.

    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 action ('List models') and resource ('exposed by the configured ComfyUI server using the object info endpoints'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_workflows' or 'read_workflow', which prevents a score of 5.

    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 by explaining how to use 'kind' and 'recursive' parameters to get different types of lists, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_workflows' or 'read_workflow', nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

    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?

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool reads a file, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify permissions required, error handling (e.g., if the path doesn't exist), or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that accesses files, lacking details on safety or constraints.

    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 a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and key parameter context. It's front-loaded with essential information and has no wasted words, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

    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 likely describes the returned workflow file content), the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, with no annotations and a simple parameter, it adequately covers the basic operation but lacks behavioral details like error handling or permissions, making it minimally viable but with gaps.

    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?

    The schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning by explaining that 'relative_path' refers to a path 'inside the configured workflow directory'. This clarifies the parameter's context beyond the schema's basic string type. However, it doesn't detail format examples or constraints, so it partially compensates but not fully, aligning with the baseline expectation.

    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 ('Read') and resource ('a specific workflow file'), specifying it's identified by 'relative path inside the configured workflow directory'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_workflows' which presumably list workflows rather than read individual files. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, keeping it at 4 instead of 5.

    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 like 'list_workflows' or 'list_models'. It mentions the context ('configured workflow directory') but offers no explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites, leaving usage unclear beyond the basic operation.

    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 mentions 'available on disk', hinting at a read operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or what 'list' entails (e.g., format, pagination). The description is minimal and 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.

    Conciseness5/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and efficiently conveys the essential information without unnecessary elaboration.

    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, the description does not need to explain return values. However, with no annotations and low schema coverage, it lacks details on behavior and parameters. The description is adequate for a simple list operation but misses context on usage and transparency, making it minimally viable.

    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 does not mention the 'include_preview' parameter at all, but since there is only one optional parameter, the baseline is high. The description focuses on the core action, but fails to explain parameter usage, resulting in a slight deduction from the ideal.

    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 the resource 'ComfyUI workflow files', specifying they are 'available on disk'. It distinguishes from 'read_workflow' by indicating listing vs reading content, but does not explicitly differentiate from 'list_models' beyond the resource type.

    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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_models' or 'read_workflow'. The description implies usage for listing files on disk, but lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative scenarios.

    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

ComfyUI_MCP MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

ComfyUI_MCP MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

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/neutrinotek/ComfyUI_MCP'

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