duddy

duddy_list_models

List available model directories or files inside a specified folder, so you can verify model names before referencing them and avoid missing-file errors.

Instructions

列出模型文件。不带 folder 时返回所有模型目录名；带 folder 返回该目录下的文件名。写死模型名之前查一下，避免文件不存在。

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "duddy_list_models"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`folder`	No	如 checkpoints / loras / vae / diffusion_models / text_encoders

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key behavioral trait: the return value changes shape based on whether folder is supplied (directory names vs. filenames). It does not state read-only safety, sorting, recursion, or what happens for an invalid folder name, so a small gap remains for a mutation-free listing tool.

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?

Three short clauses, each earning its place: what it does, how the two modes differ, and why an agent should call it. Front-loaded with the purpose and no redundant restatement of the tool name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single optional-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, both return modes, and the motivating use case. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already enumerates example folder values (checkpoints / loras / vae / etc.). The description adds meaning beyond that by defining the semantics of omitting the parameter entirely — a behavior the schema does not express.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('列出模型文件' / list model files) and immediately explains the two modes of operation: no folder returns model directory names, with folder returns filenames in that directory. This is clear enough to distinguish it from all listed siblings (plans, logs, canvas, node info), though it never names a sibling explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives concrete when-to-use guidance: check this before hardcoding model names to avoid referencing nonexistent files. That is an actionable trigger. It stops short of a 5 because there is no when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative, though in this case no sibling tool appears to overlap.

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

Deploy Server