Skip to main content
Glama

n8n_update_project

Modify an existing n8n project by updating its name, type, or other properties using the project ID.

Instructions

Update a project

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesProject ID
nameNoNew project name
typeNoProject type

Implementation Reference

  • The MCP tool handler for 'n8n_update_project' which delegates the logic to n8nClient.updateProject.
    case 'n8n_update_project': {
      if (!args?.id) throw new Error('id is required');
      const { id, ...data } = args;
      const result = await n8nClient.updateProject(id as string, data);
      return {
        content: [{ type: 'text', text: formatResponse(result) }],
      };
    }
  • The tool schema registration for 'n8n_update_project' defining the input requirements.
    {
      name: 'n8n_update_project',
      description: 'Update a project',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          id: { type: 'string', description: 'Project ID' },
          name: { type: 'string', description: 'New project name' },
          type: { type: 'string', description: 'Project type' },
        },
        required: ['id'],
      },
  • The actual API client method that performs the HTTP PUT request to update an n8n project.
    async updateProject(id: string, data: { name?: string; type?: string }): Promise<any> {
      const response = await this.client.put(`/projects/${id}`, data);
      return response.data;
    }
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to specify whether this performs a partial update (only modifying provided fields) or full replacement, whether the operation is idempotent, or what error occurs if the project ID doesn't exist. For a mutation operation, this lack of safety/behavioral context is a significant gap.

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 extremely brief (3 words) with zero redundancy or wasted text. While arguably underspecified, every word earns its place and the structure is efficient.

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?

For a mutation tool with 3 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It omits critical context such as what 'type' values are valid, whether partial updates are supported, and what distinguishes project updates from other resource updates in the sibling list.

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% (all three parameters have descriptions in the schema). The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, but since the schema already documents 'Project ID', 'New project name', and 'Project type', the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Update a project' is tautological—it restates the tool name (n8n_update_project) without adding specificity. While it technically identifies the verb and resource, it fails to distinguish this from sibling update tools like n8n_update_workflow or n8n_add_user_to_project, and doesn't clarify what aspects of the project are updatable.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to update a project name vs. transferring workflows/credentials between projects). No mention of prerequisites, side effects, or error conditions.

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/Shravan1610/n8n-mcp-server'

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