Displays a single generation result as a Prefab card, summarizing prompt, seed, workflow ID, and output files for quick review.
Display a single generation result as a Prefab card.
Rich card with prompt, seed, workflow, and output files
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| seed | Yes | ||
| prompt | Yes | ||
| outputs | No | ||
| workflow_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states what it displays but does not disclose whether it is read-only, whether it has side effects, or any constraints. The return-format note hints at output but not operational behavior.
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 short and to the point, but the '## Return Format' heading is oddly placed and the content is sparse. It is concise without being verbose, but could be better structured with front-loaded key details.
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?
With 4 parameters, no schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not provide enough context for an agent to construct a valid call, understand parameter relationships, or know what the expected output fully looks like.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It mentions prompt, seed, workflow, and output files only in the context of the card's content, not as input semantics. It does not explain what each parameter means, how they are used, or any constraints.
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?
States a specific verb 'Display' and resource 'single generation result as a Prefab card', making the core action clear. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like show_comfyops_status_card or comfy_generate, so differentiation is missing.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent cannot determine whether to pick this over comfy_generate or other display tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.