Skip to main content
Glama

n8n_update_workflow

Modify existing n8n workflows by updating nodes, connections, names, or activation status to adapt automation processes as requirements change.

Instructions

Update an existing workflow

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesWorkflow ID
nameNoNew workflow name
nodesNoUpdated nodes
connectionsNoUpdated connections
activeNoActive status

Implementation Reference

  • Handler logic for 'n8n_update_workflow' in the MCP server request handler.
    case 'n8n_update_workflow': {
      if (!args?.id) throw new Error('id is required');
      const { id, ...data } = args;
      const result = await n8nClient.updateWorkflow(id as string, data);
      return {
        content: [{ type: 'text', text: formatResponse(result) }],
      };
    }
  • src/index.ts:483-496 (registration)
    Tool registration and schema definition for 'n8n_update_workflow'.
      name: 'n8n_update_workflow',
      description: 'Update an existing workflow',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          id: { type: 'string', description: 'Workflow ID' },
          name: { type: 'string', description: 'New workflow name' },
          nodes: { type: 'array', description: 'Updated nodes' },
          connections: { type: 'object', description: 'Updated connections' },
          active: { type: 'boolean', description: 'Active status' },
        },
        required: ['id'],
      },
    },
  • The actual API client method that performs the HTTP PUT request to update the workflow.
    async updateWorkflow(id: string, data: any): Promise<any> {
      const response = await this.client.put(`/workflows/${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 unspecified fields are preserved (PATCH) or replaced (PUT), whether the update is atomic, or what happens to active executions when nodes/connections are modified. No authentication or rate limit context is provided.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

While the single sentence is not verbose, it is inappropriately brief for a complex mutation tool handling nested objects (nodes, connections). The description is front-loaded but undersized for the operation's complexity, failing to earn its place by not conveying critical safety information.

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 presence of complex nested objects (nodes and connections) and mutation semantics, the description is incomplete. It lacks explanation of return values (no output schema exists), partial update behavior, or the relationship between the 'active' parameter and the dedicated activation sibling tools.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage (all 5 parameters documented). The description adds no semantic detail beyond the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain the structure of 'nodes' or 'connections'), meeting the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description provides a basic verb ('Update') and resource ('workflow'), and the word 'existing' correctly implies the 'id' parameter is required. However, it fails to distinguish from siblings like 'n8n_activate_workflow' or 'n8n_update_workflow_tags', leaving ambiguity about whether this tool handles activation or updates the workflow definition itself.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'n8n_activate_workflow' for activation changes or 'n8n_update_workflow_tags' for tag management. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., workflow must exist) or warnings about partial vs full updates.

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