Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
duddy

duddy

by qu15501267889-sketch
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

duddy_search_nodes

Search installed ComfyUI node types by keyword before planning to verify actual availability and avoid writing node names from memory.

Instructions

搜索这台机器上真实存在的节点类型。【规划前必查】不要凭记忆写节点名，先搜一下确认它真的装了。

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": {
      "q": "<q>"
    },
    "name": "duddy_search_nodes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qYes关键词，如 qwen / sampler / upscale
limitNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavioral trait: results are limited to node types actually installed on this machine, not a general registry. It says nothing about result format, whether the match is fuzzy or exact, or what limit does, so mutation-safety and output shape are unaddressed.

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 short clauses, front-loaded with what the tool does and immediately followed by the mandatory-usage directive. No filler, and the bracketed precondition tag is scannable.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description should be doing more. It conveys the scope of what is returned (installed node types) but not the shape of results, matching behavior, or the role of limit, leaving an agent partly blind for a tool used as a hard prerequisite to planning.

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 coverage is only 50%: q is documented with keyword examples, but limit has no description in either the schema or the description text. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, so an agent must guess whether limit caps result count and what the default of 15 implies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: search for node types that actually exist on this machine. The 'real/installed' qualifier meaningfully separates it from a static catalog lookup, though the description never names the sibling it complements (duddy_node_info) to sharpen the boundary.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly says it must be consulted before planning and tells the agent not to recall node names from memory but to verify they are installed. That is a concrete when-to-use rule plus a named failure mode to avoid, which is stronger than most tool definitions provide.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools