Skip to main content
Glama
DrBalls

n8n MCP Server

by DrBalls

Get n8n Project

n8n_get_project
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve details of a specific n8n project by providing its unique ID to access project information including name and type.

Instructions

Get details of a specific project.

Args:

  • id (string): Project ID

Returns: Project details with id, name, and type.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe unique identifier of the resource

Implementation Reference

  • The 'n8n_get_project' tool is defined and implemented here as an asynchronous handler using the project ID to fetch project details via the 'get' API service.
      server.registerTool(
        'n8n_get_project',
        {
          title: 'Get n8n Project',
          description: `Get details of a specific project.
    
    Args:
      - id (string): Project ID
    
    Returns:
      Project details with id, name, and type.`,
          inputSchema: IdParamSchema,
          annotations: {
            readOnlyHint: true,
            destructiveHint: false,
            idempotentHint: true,
            openWorldHint: false
          }
        },
        async (params: z.infer<typeof IdParamSchema>) => {
          const project = await get<N8nProject>(`/projects/${params.id}`);
          
          return {
            content: [{ type: 'text', text: formatProject(project) }],
            structuredContent: project
          };
        }
      );
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already provide strong behavioral hints (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: false). The description adds minimal context beyond this, mentioning it returns 'Project details with id, name, and type,' which gives some insight into output format. It doesn't contradict annotations, but adds only basic behavioral information.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main purpose in the first sentence. The Args and Returns sections are structured but could be more integrated. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, though the parameter listing adds minimal value given the schema coverage.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema), annotations cover safety and idempotency, and schema fully describes the input, the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the tool's purpose and return fields, though it could benefit from more context on usage relative to siblings or error handling.

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 100%, with the parameter 'id' well-documented in the schema as 'The unique identifier of the resource.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, merely restating 'id (string): Project ID.' With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get details of a specific project.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('project'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'n8n_list_projects' or 'n8n_get_workflow' which might be used in similar contexts. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'n8n_list_projects' for listing multiple projects or 'n8n_get_workflow' for workflow details, nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts where this tool is appropriate. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/DrBalls/n8n-mcp-server-v2'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server