Skip to main content
Glama
enesjakozh
Jimmy974

n8n Workflow Builder MCP Server

by Jimmy974
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Remote

n8n 워크플로 빌더 MCP 서버

대장간 배지

n8n 워크플로를 프로그래밍 방식으로 생성하고 관리하기 위한 MCP(모델 컨텍스트 프로토콜) 서버입니다.

특징

  • 노드와 연결을 사용하여 워크플로 생성

  • 워크플로 사양 검증

  • 전체 워크플로 구성 내보내기

  • MCP를 통한 REST API 인터페이스

Related MCP server: MCP Server for n8n Integration

설치

Smithery를 통해 설치

Smithery를 통해 Claude Desktop용 n8n Workflow Builder를 자동으로 설치하려면:

지엑스피1

수동 설치

  1. 저장소를 복제합니다.

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

  1. 종속성 설치:

npm install

  1. TypeScript 컴파일:

npx tsc

  1. 서버를 시작합니다:

npm start

용법

서버는 워크플로 사양을 허용하는 create_workflow 도구를 제공합니다.

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

구성

MCP 구성에 서버를 추가합니다.

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

특허

MIT

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
Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

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