Skip to main content
Glama
DrBalls

n8n MCP Server

by DrBalls

Update n8n Tag

n8n_update_tag
Idempotent

Rename existing tags in n8n workflows by providing the tag ID and new name to maintain organized automation systems.

Instructions

Rename an existing tag.

Args:

  • id (string): Tag ID to update

  • name (string): New tag name (max 24 characters)

Returns: The updated tag.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesTag ID to update
nameYesNew tag name

Implementation Reference

  • The handler implementation for the n8n_update_tag tool, which uses a PUT request to update an n8n tag by ID.
      server.registerTool(
        'n8n_update_tag',
        {
          title: 'Update n8n Tag',
          description: `Rename an existing tag.
    
    Args:
      - id (string): Tag ID to update
      - name (string): New tag name (max 24 characters)
    
    Returns:
      The updated tag.`,
          inputSchema: UpdateTagSchema,
          annotations: {
            readOnlyHint: false,
            destructiveHint: false,
            idempotentHint: true,
            openWorldHint: false
          }
        },
        async (params: z.infer<typeof UpdateTagSchema>) => {
          const { id, ...updateData } = params;
          const tag = await put<N8nTag>(`/tags/${id}`, updateData);
          
          return {
            content: [{ type: 'text', text: `✅ Tag updated!\n\n${formatTag(tag)}` }],
            structuredContent: tag
          };
        }
      );
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already provide key behavioral hints: readOnlyHint=false (mutation), idempotentHint=true (safe to retry), destructiveHint=false (non-destructive). The description adds minimal context beyond this - it clarifies that it renames rather than creates, but doesn't mention permission requirements, rate limits, or what happens if the name already exists. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, Args, Returns) and uses only essential sentences. However, the Args section largely duplicates schema information, and the Returns section could be more informative given there's no output schema.

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?

For a mutation tool with good annotations but no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic operation and parameters but lacks important context about error conditions, what 'updated tag' means structurally, and how this tool fits within the broader tag management ecosystem alongside its siblings.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents both parameters (id and name with their constraints). The description repeats this information in the Args section but adds no additional semantic context about parameter relationships, validation rules beyond max length, or format expectations for the ID.

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 action ('Rename') and resource ('an existing tag'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its sibling 'n8n_update_workflow_tags' which also deals with tag updates, nor does it mention that this is specifically for renaming versus other tag modifications.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing tag ID), when not to use it, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'n8n_update_workflow_tags' or 'n8n_create_tag' for tag management scenarios.

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