Skip to main content
Glama
enesjakozh
Jimmy974

n8n Workflow Builder MCP Server

by Jimmy974
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Remote

n8n ワークフロービルダー MCP サーバー

鍛冶屋のバッジ

n8n ワークフローをプログラムで作成および管理するためのモデル コンテキスト プロトコル (MCP) サーバー。

特徴

  • ノードと接続を使用してワークフローを作成する

  • ワークフロー仕様の検証

  • 完全なワークフロー構成をエクスポートする

  • MCP 経由の REST API インターフェース

Related MCP server: MCP Server for n8n Integration

インストール

Smithery経由でインストール

Smithery経由で Claude Desktop 用の n8n Workflow Builder を自動的にインストールするには:

npx -y @smithery/cli install n8n-workflow-builder --client claude

手動インストール

  1. リポジトリをクローンします。

git clone https://github.com/[your-username]/n8n-workflow-builder.git
cd n8n-workflow-builder

  1. 依存関係をインストールします:

npm install

  1. TypeScript をコンパイルします。

npx tsc

  1. サーバーを起動します。

npm start

使用法

サーバーは、ワークフロー仕様を受け入れるcreate_workflowツールを提供します。

{
  "nodes": [
    {
      "type": "n8n-nodes-base.httpRequest",
      "name": "HTTP Request",
      "parameters": {
        "url": "https://example.com",
        "method": "GET"
      }
    }
  ],
  "connections": []
}

構成

サーバーを MCP 構成に追加します。

{
  "n8n-workflow-builder": {
    "command": "node",
    "args": ["/path/to/n8n-workflow-builder/dist/index.js"]
  }
}

ライセンス

マサチューセッツ工科大学

Available Tools

1 tool
create_workflowC

Create and configure n8n workflows programmatically

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nodesYes
connectionsNo

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'create and configure' which implies a write operation, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether workflows are active upon creation, error handling, or rate limits.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word earning its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of creating workflows (a mutation operation), no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter semantics, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, output, error cases, or integration context, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage for the 2 parameters, the description does not compensate by explaining what 'nodes' and 'connections' represent in the context of n8n workflows. It adds no meaning beyond the bare schema, leaving parameters semantically unclear.

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 verb ('Create and configure') and resource ('n8n workflows'), specifying that this is for programmatic creation. However, without sibling tools, there's no explicit differentiation from alternatives, preventing a perfect score.

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 other methods (e.g., UI-based creation) or any prerequisites. It implies usage for programmatic workflow creation but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 1 tool update
    • First observedcreate_workflow
Deploy Server
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Scored across 1 tool

Disambiguation5/5

With only one tool, there is no possibility of ambiguity or overlap between tools. The single tool 'create_workflow' has a clear, distinct purpose that cannot be confused with any other tool in this set.

Naming Consistency5/5

The naming pattern is perfectly consistent as there is only one tool. It follows a clear verb_noun convention ('create_workflow'), which would be easy to maintain if more tools were added.

Tool Count2/5

A single tool is insufficient for a 'Workflow Builder' server, which implies capabilities like listing, updating, executing, or deleting workflows. This feels thin and under-scoped for the apparent domain of workflow management.

Completeness1/5

The tool surface is severely incomplete for workflow building. It only offers creation, with no ability to read, update, delete, execute, or manage existing workflows. This creates significant dead ends for agents trying to perform basic lifecycle operations.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

Appeared in Searches