Retrieve a single n8n workflow via REST API for review or backup. Returns summary by default; use include_definition for the editable definition (secrets excluded).
Read one n8n workflow through the official REST API. Returns a compact summary by default; include_definition returns the updateable workflow definition but never credential secrets.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| workflow_id | Yes | ||
| include_definition | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does meaningful work: it discloses the default versus expanded return modes and, importantly, that the definition never includes credential secrets — a security-relevant guarantee an agent could not infer from the schema. It does not cover failure behavior for a missing workflow_id or any auth/permission requirements, so it falls short of a full 5.
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?
Two tight sentences with no filler, and the default behavior plus the include_definition escalation are front-loaded in the first, most relevant clause.
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?
For a two-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential decision (summary vs full definition) and the critical security caveat. What the compact summary actually contains, and error handling for an unknown id, remain unspecified, so it is strong but not exhaustive.
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 compensate, and it does for include_definition: it explains the flag's effect (returns the updateable workflow definition) and its security boundary (no credential secrets). workflow_id is only implied by 'Read one n8n workflow', which is adequate but not explicit about format or where the id comes from.
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 ('Read'), a bounded resource ('one n8n workflow'), and the transport ('official REST API'). The singular read scope clearly separates it from n8n_diff_workflow, n8n_backup_workflow and n8n_list_test_clones, which compare, persist, or enumerate rather than fetch a single record.
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?
The description implies when to use each mode ('Returns a compact summary by default; include_definition returns the updateable workflow definition'), which is useful implied guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over the siblings (e.g., before diffing or planning an update), so no explicit routing guidance exists.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.