get_workflowThe full JSON of one workflow in your n8n.
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": {
"workflow_id": "<workflow_id>"
},
"name": "get_workflow"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| workflow_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish that this is a non-destructive, read-only, open-world operation. The description adds that the result is the full JSON rather than metadata, but it does not discuss permissions, large-workflow behavior, or whether all fields are included.
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?
It is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its terseness contributes to the gaps in guidance and parameter semantics.
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?
The tool is simple, with one required parameter and rich annotations, so the description is nearly sufficient. However, it lacks workflow_id guidance and does not clarify why an agent should choose this over describe_workflow.
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 carries the burden of explaining workflow_id. It only implies that one workflow is identified, without saying where the ID comes from or what format it takes.
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?
It states a specific resource and return shape: the full JSON of one workflow in n8n. That distinguishes it from list_workflows, but it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling describe_workflow, which an agent could easily confuse it with.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as describe_workflow or list_workflows. The agent must infer that this retrieves the complete workflow object rather than a summary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.