duddy

duddy_node_info

Retrieves a node type's full definition—required inputs, widgets, allowed values, and outputs—so you can write correct widget parameters and avoid failures before building ComfyUI nodes.

Instructions

查某个节点类型的完整定义：需要哪些输入、有哪些 widget、可选值是什么、输出什么。写 widgets 之前必须查，否则参数名写错会直接失败。

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "node_type": "<node_type>"
    },
    "name": "duddy_node_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`node_type`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool is a read-only definition lookup, what fields the response covers ('输出什么'), and the failure mode for not calling it first. It does not state whether an unknown node_type errors or returns empty, nor whether the response is cached or rate limited.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the return contents and followed by the operational imperative. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned and why the call matters. It leaves a gap on how to obtain a valid node_type, which is the only real prerequisite for invoking it correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single node_type parameter, so the description must compensate. It conveys that the argument is a node type but never specifies the expected string format (kind vs. label), nor how the agent should discover valid values, presumably via duddy_search_nodes or duddy_canvas_state.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('查某个节点类型的完整定义') and then enumerates the exact contents of the returned definition: required inputs, available widgets, enum values, and outputs. This lets an agent know precisely what it gets from the call. It stops short of 5 because it never contrasts itself with the sibling duddy_search_nodes, which an agent could plausibly confuse with a node-type lookup.

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?

Guidance is explicit and operational: '写 widgets 之前必须查' tells the agent exactly when to invoke the tool, and '参数名写错会直接失败' explains the cost of skipping it. There is no explicit when-not or named alternative (e.g., duddy_search_nodes for discovery), which keeps it below 5.

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

Deploy Server