Skip to main content
Glama

N8n

by io.github.pipeworx-io
OverviewAdmin

N8n List Executions

n8n_list_executions
Read-onlyIdempotent

List recent workflow executions (runs) in your n8n instance — for "did our workflows run", "show recent failures", "execution history". Each: id, workflowId, status (success/error/waiting), mode, startedAt, stoppedAt. Filter by status and/or workflow_id. Requires your instance_url + n8n API key (_apiKey).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax executions (1-250, default 50).
statusNoFilter: "success" | "error" | "waiting". Omit for all.
_apiKeyYesREQUIRED — your n8n API key (Settings → n8n API → Create an API key). Sent as the X-N8N-API-KEY header. No shared key exists for this pack.
workflow_idNoOnly executions of this workflow id.
instance_urlYesREQUIRED — your n8n instance base URL, e.g. "https://you.app.n8n.cloud" (n8n Cloud) or "https://n8n.example.com" (self-hosted). Must be a public https URL.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "_apiKey": "your-n8n-api-key",
+    "instance_url": "https://n8n.example.com"
+  },
+  {
+    "_apiKey": "your-n8n-api-key",
+    "instance_url": "https://n8n.example.com",
+    "limit": 25,
+    "status": "error",
+    "workflow_id": "123"
+  }
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds valuable context: it mentions required auth (instance_url + API key), summarizes the output fields, and notes the 'recent' scope of executions. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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?

The description is three sentences: purpose, output fields, then filtering and requirements. It is front-loaded and every sentence carries meaningful information without redundancy.

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?

With 5 parameters, no output schema, and richer annotations, the description covers purpose, use cases, output shape, auth requirements, and filtering. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly; only minor details like pagination are left to the schema.

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 coverage is 100% and parameter descriptions are thorough. The description only restates 'Filter by status and/or workflow_id', which adds minimal value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb+resource: 'List recent workflow executions (runs)' which clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like n8n_list_workflows and n8n_get_workflow. It also lists concrete use cases ('did our workflows run', 'show recent failures', 'execution history').

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool via use cases and mentions filtering by status/workflow_id. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like n8n_list_workflows for workflow definitions, just implies the distinction.

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

All N8n toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources