n8n-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes targeting specific resources like workflows, credentials, executions, tags, variables, and data tables, with clear CRUD operations. However, some potential overlap exists between execute_workflow and trigger_webhook_test (both involve running workflows), and stop_execution vs stop_many_executions could be confusing if not carefully read. Overall, descriptions help clarify boundaries, but minor ambiguity remains.
Naming Consistency5/5
Tool names follow a highly consistent verb_noun pattern throughout, such as create_workflow, get_workflow, update_workflow, delete_workflow, and similarly for credentials, tags, variables, executions, and data tables. All names use snake_case uniformly, with clear action verbs (list, get, create, update, delete, execute, stop, etc.), making the set predictable and easy to navigate.
Tool Count2/5
With 43 tools, the count is excessive for typical MCP server scopes, which are best kept focused with 3-15 tools. While n8n is a complex workflow automation platform, this many tools can overwhelm agents and increase cognitive load. A more streamlined set grouping related operations or using parameters could reduce the count without losing functionality, making it borderline heavy for effective agent use.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface provides comprehensive coverage for managing n8n workflows and related resources, including full CRUD operations for workflows, credentials, tags, variables, data tables, and executions, plus advanced features like execution control, auditing, versioning, and source control. There are no obvious gaps; agents can perform end-to-end lifecycle management, validation, and monitoring within this domain.
Average 3.2/5 across 43 of 43 tools scored. Lowest: 2.4/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the 'write_mode' requirement which hints at permission needs, but doesn't describe what 'update' entails (e.g., whether it overwrites or merges, what happens to unspecified fields, if changes are reversible, or any rate limits). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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 brief (two short sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. It wastes no words, though the second sentence about 'write_mode' could be more integrated. The structure is efficient, though slightly fragmented between the two statements.
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 this is a mutation tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what fields can be updated, how the update behaves, what the output contains, or how it differs from sibling tools. The presence of an output schema helps but doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral and parameter context.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 5 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description provides no information about what parameters are available, what they mean, or how they should be used. This leaves all parameters completely undocumented, failing to compensate for the schema coverage gap.
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 states the verb 'update' and resource 'existing workflow', which clarifies the basic purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'update_workflow_tags' or 'create_workflow', leaving the scope somewhat vague. The mention of 'write_mode' requirement adds specificity but doesn't fully distinguish it from other workflow modification tools.
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 mentions 'Requires write_mode' which provides a prerequisite condition, but it doesn't offer guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_workflow' or 'update_workflow_tags'. No explicit when/when-not scenarios or sibling tool comparisons are provided, leaving usage context incomplete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves a tag by ID but does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, error handling (e.g., if the tag doesn't exist), authentication needs, or rate limits. This leaves gaps in understanding how the tool operates beyond its basic purpose.
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, clear sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with the core action. It efficiently communicates the tool's intent without unnecessary elaboration, fitting well within the context of a simple retrieval tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage, behavior, and parameter semantics that would enhance agent understanding. The output schema likely handles return values, reducing the need for description elaboration, but overall completeness is adequate with clear gaps.
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?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'by ID' which adds meaning to the 'tag_id' parameter, but does not specify the ID format (e.g., string type, length, or examples). This provides minimal semantic value beyond the schema's basic structure.
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 states the tool's purpose as 'Get a specific tag by ID,' which includes a verb ('Get') and resource ('tag'), but it is vague about what 'Get' entails (e.g., retrieving details or metadata). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_tags' by specifying retrieval by ID, but lacks detail on the scope of information returned.
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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage when a specific tag ID is known, but does not mention when to use 'list_tags' for broader queries or other tag-related tools like 'update_tag' or 'delete_tag'. The description offers no context on prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 states the tool generates a security audit but doesn't describe what this entails operationally - whether it's a read-only scan, if it requires specific permissions, if it's resource-intensive, what the output format is, or any side effects. The mention of 'days_abandoned_workflow' in the schema suggests workflow-related auditing, but this isn't explained in the description.
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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. The single sentence efficiently communicates the main function followed by category examples. However, the category listing could be more structured, and the lack of parameter guidance means it's somewhat under-specified rather than optimally concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there's an output schema (which should document return values) and only 2 parameters, the description provides a basic but incomplete picture. It covers the core purpose adequately but fails to explain parameter usage, behavioral characteristics, or how this tool fits into the broader security audit workflow. For a tool that presumably produces important security information, more context would be helpful.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'Categories: credentials, database, nodes, filesystem, instance' which partially explains the 'categories' parameter, but doesn't clarify if this is an exhaustive list, if multiple can be selected, or their meaning. It completely ignores the 'days_abandoned_workflow' parameter, leaving its purpose and relationship to the audit unexplained.
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 tool's purpose: 'Generate a security audit' with specific categories listed (credentials, database, nodes, filesystem, instance). This provides a specific verb ('generate') and resource ('security audit') with scope details. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from potential audit-related siblings, though none appear in the sibling list.
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 alternatives. While it lists categories, it doesn't indicate whether these are required, optional, or exhaustive, nor does it mention prerequisites, dependencies, or when this audit generation might be preferred over other security or monitoring tools in the system.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Stop multiple executions') but doesn't explain what 'stop' means operationally (pause, cancel, terminate?), whether it's reversible, permission requirements, side effects, or rate limits. The mention of status options adds some context but insufficient for a mutation tool.
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 extremely concise with two sentences that directly address the tool's function and one parameter. Every word serves a purpose with zero waste or redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core action followed by specific filtering detail.
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 batch mutation tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and sibling tools offering similar/destructive operations, this description is inadequate. While an output schema exists, the description fails to explain critical behavioral aspects, parameter usage beyond status, or differentiation from alternatives. The agent would struggle to use this correctly.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions 'status' parameter with its possible values, ignoring the other 3 parameters (workflow_id, started_after, started_before). This leaves 75% of parameters undocumented in both schema and description, creating significant gaps for the agent.
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 ('Stop') and resource ('multiple executions') with specific filtering criteria. It distinguishes from the sibling 'stop_execution' by indicating batch/multiple operations rather than single execution. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'delete_execution' which might be a related destructive operation.
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 minimal guidance on when to use this tool, mentioning only status options for filtering. It doesn't explain when to choose this over 'stop_execution' (single vs. batch), 'delete_execution' (stop vs. delete), or 'retry_execution' (stop vs. retry). No prerequisites, limitations, or alternative scenarios are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation but doesn't cover pagination behavior, rate limits, permissions needed, or what 'all' entails (e.g., scope limitations). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with parameters.
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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate for a simple list operation but lacks parameter explanations and behavioral context. It meets basic requirements but has clear gaps.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description doesn't mention the two parameters (limit, sort_by) at all, failing to compensate for the schema gap. This leaves parameters entirely undocumented.
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 ('List') and resource ('all data tables in the instance'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling list tools like list_credentials or list_workflows, which would require explicit differentiation to earn a 5.
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 alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or comparison with other listing tools (e.g., list_workflows), leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral insight. It mentions the resource type and accessibility but omits critical details like pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'list' entails (e.g., returns metadata vs. full values). For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
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 with zero waste—front-loaded and to the point. Every word contributes to defining the tool's purpose without redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks parameter explanations and behavioral context. The output schema mitigates some gaps, but for a list operation with undocumented parameters, more detail is needed.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain 'limit' (e.g., pagination or max results) or 'project_id' (e.g., filtering scope), leaving both parameters undocumented. With 2 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description fails to provide necessary semantics.
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 ('List') and resource ('instance variables'), specifying they are 'key-value pairs accessible across all workflows.' It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_variable' (singular) or 'create_variable,' but doesn't explicitly contrast with other list tools like 'list_workflows' or 'list_tags.'
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a project context) or compare with similar tools like 'list_workflows' for workflow-specific variables. The description implies a broad scope ('across all workflows') but lacks explicit usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 'Requires write_mode', which hints at permission needs, but lacks details on behavioral traits such as whether activation is reversible, rate limits, side effects on existing triggers, or what happens if the workflow is already active. The description is minimal and doesn't compensate for the absence of annotations.
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 extremely concise with two sentences that are front-loaded and waste no words. Each sentence adds value: the first defines the action and outcome, and the second specifies a prerequisite, making it efficiently structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a workflow activation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but an output schema exists, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and a prerequisite but lacks details on parameters, behavioral context, and usage guidance. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but other gaps remain significant.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It doesn't mention any parameters, leaving both 'workflow_id' and 'version_id' unexplained. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to address what these parameters represent or how they affect the activation process.
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 action ('Activate (publish)') and resource ('a workflow'), specifying that triggers start running. It distinguishes from sibling 'deactivate_workflow' by indicating activation vs. deactivation, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other workflow-related tools like 'execute_workflow' or 'update_workflow'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides implied usage context by stating 'Requires write_mode', suggesting a prerequisite condition. However, it doesn't explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'deactivate_workflow' or 'execute_workflow', nor does it mention exclusions or specific scenarios for activation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 mentions the 'write_mode' requirement, which is helpful, but doesn't describe what happens on success/failure, whether the operation is idempotent, what validation occurs, or how conflicts with existing variables are handled. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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 extremely concise at just two short sentences, with the core purpose stated first and the prerequisite clearly indicated. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a creation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, but with an output schema present, the description provides minimal but functional information. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values, but it should do more to explain parameters and behavioral context for a tool that creates resources.
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 both parameters, the description provides no information about what 'key' and 'value' represent, their formats, constraints, or examples. The description doesn't compensate for this complete lack of parameter documentation in the schema, leaving the agent with no guidance about what to provide for these required parameters.
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 action ('Create') and resource ('new instance variable'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'update_variable' or explain what distinguishes 'instance variables' from other variable types in this system.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides one explicit prerequisite ('Requires write_mode'), which gives some context about when this tool can be used. However, it offers no guidance about when to choose this tool versus 'update_variable' for modifying existing variables or 'create_variable' versus other creation tools like 'create_tag' or 'create_credential'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 mentions the write_mode requirement, which is useful context about permissions/configuration. However, it doesn't describe what happens after creation (e.g., whether the workflow is active, what the response contains), potential side effects, error conditions, or rate limits. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
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 extremely concise at just two sentences, with zero wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds the only contextual requirement. It's perfectly front-loaded and appropriately sized for the information it conveys.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there's an output schema (which handles return values), the description doesn't need to explain response format. However, for a creation tool with 4 parameters (3 required), nested objects, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It mentions the write_mode requirement but doesn't help the agent understand what constitutes a valid workflow or how to structure the complex 'nodes' and 'connections' parameters.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 4 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description provides no information about what 'name', 'nodes', 'connections', or 'settings' should contain, their formats, constraints, or examples. This leaves the agent guessing about parameter meanings and requirements, which is inadequate given the low schema coverage.
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 resource 'new workflow', making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_workflow' by focusing on creation rather than modification. However, it doesn't specify what a workflow consists of or its domain context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides one explicit usage condition: 'Requires write_mode to be enabled.' This gives important context about prerequisites. However, it doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_and_validate_workflow' or 'update_workflow', nor does it mention any exclusions or complementary tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 scoping but doesn't disclose key behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, rate limits, or what the output includes. The description is minimal and misses important details needed for safe and effective use.
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 front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, with zero waste, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (which likely covers return values), the description doesn't need to explain outputs. However, with no annotations, 3 parameters at 0% coverage, and a purpose that involves scoping and capabilities, the description is too minimal. It lacks details on parameters, behavioral context, and usage scenarios, making it incomplete for effective agent 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It doesn't mention any parameters (resource, operation, include_schemas) or their meanings. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema, leaving all three parameters unexplained, which is inadequate given the low coverage.
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 tool's purpose: 'Discover available API capabilities based on the current API key's scopes.' It specifies the verb ('discover') and resource ('API capabilities'), and provides context about scopes. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, which are mostly CRUD operations on workflows, credentials, tags, etc., making this tool distinct but not explicitly contrasted.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by mentioning 'based on the current API key's scopes,' suggesting it's for checking permissions or available features. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for scoping checks before other operations) or any exclusions. The context is clear but lacks detailed alternatives or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks critical behavioral details. It mentions 'write_mode' requirement but doesn't disclose whether execution is destructive, reversible, or has rate limits. For a tool that likely performs significant operations, this is inadequate transparency.
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 efficiently structured in two sentences: first stating the core function, then adding a critical requirement. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (executing workflows with validation), no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. While an output schema exists, the description should provide more context about execution behavior, outcomes, and error conditions for adequate understanding.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but adds minimal parameter context. It mentions 'optional test data' but doesn't explain what test data should contain or how workflow_id is obtained. The two parameters remain largely undocumented beyond their names.
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 action ('execute a workflow') and purpose ('for end-to-end validation'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'activate_workflow' or 'create_workflow'. However, it doesn't specify what 'execute' entails compared to similar operations like 'retry_execution' or 'stop_execution'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for validation with test data, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'trigger_webhook_test' or 'retry_execution'. The 'Requires write_mode' note hints at a prerequisite, but doesn't clarify context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves schema and column definitions, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, error handling, or the format of the output. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.
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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core purpose, making it easy to understand at a glance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there's an output schema (which likely details the return structure), the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, with no annotations and incomplete parameter semantics, the description is minimal. It covers the basic purpose but lacks depth for a tool that interacts with data tables, which could involve complex metadata.
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?
The input schema has one parameter ('table_id') with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no details about this parameter. The description doesn't add any semantic information about 'table_id', such as what it represents or where to obtain it. However, with only one parameter, the baseline is higher, but the lack of clarification reduces the score.
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 action ('Get') and the target ('a data table's schema and column definitions'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_data_tables' (which likely lists tables) or 'query_table_rows' (which queries data), leaving room for ambiguity about when to choose this specific tool.
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 alternatives. With siblings such as 'list_data_tables' and 'query_table_rows', there's no indication of whether this tool is for metadata retrieval versus data querying, or any prerequisites like needing a specific table ID.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 states the action ('Get') but doesn't describe whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how errors are handled, or the format of the returned tags. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is somewhat complete. However, with no annotations and low schema coverage, it lacks behavioral context and parameter details, making it only minimally adequate for an agent to use effectively.
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?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It implies the parameter 'execution_id' is needed to fetch tags, but doesn't explain what an execution_id is, its format, or where to obtain it. This adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema's structure.
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 ('Get') and resource ('annotation tags for an execution'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_tag' or 'get_workflow_tags', which handle similar tag-related operations but for different resources.
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 alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a valid execution_id, or compare it to sibling tools like 'get_workflow_tags' or 'update_execution_tags', leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 states it 'Get[s] detailed information', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'detailed information' entails beyond the listed elements. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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 front-loads the core purpose ('Get detailed information about a specific workflow') and adds specifics ('including its nodes, connections, and settings') without waste. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and a simple input schema with 1 parameter, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details, leaving gaps in completeness for a tool that might involve complex workflow data.
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?
The input schema has 1 parameter (workflow_id) with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic context. The description doesn't mention parameters at all, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage. However, with only 1 parameter, the baseline is higher; it implicitly suggests a workflow_id is needed but adds no meaning beyond the schema's title.
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 'Get' and the resource 'detailed information about a specific workflow', specifying what information is retrieved (nodes, connections, and settings). It distinguishes from siblings like list_workflows (which lists workflows) but doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_workflow_version (which might retrieve version-specific details).
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 alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a workflow_id), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like get_workflow_version or list_workflows, leaving usage context implied at best.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 implies a read-only operation ('Get') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permissions required, rate limits, pagination, or what happens if the workflow doesn't exist. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is somewhat complete but lacks details on usage context and behavioral transparency. It meets minimum viability but has clear gaps in guidance and parameter explanation.
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?
The description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It implies the 'workflow_id' parameter is used to specify the workflow, but doesn't explain format, constraints, or examples. With one parameter and low schema coverage, the description doesn't fully compensate, resulting in a baseline score.
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 action ('Get') and target resource ('all tags assigned to a workflow'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_tag' or 'list_tags', which might retrieve tags in different contexts, so it doesn't achieve full sibling differentiation.
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 alternatives such as 'get_tag' (which might fetch a single tag) or 'list_tags' (which might list all tags without workflow association). There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Retrieve' implying a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output contains (though an output schema exists). For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, this is minimal disclosure.
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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, but with an output schema present, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks usage context, parameter details, and behavioral transparency. The output schema mitigates the need to describe return values, but gaps remain for a read operation in a complex workflow system.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies parameters for 'workflow_id' and 'version_id' by mentioning 'specific version' and 'version history', but doesn't explain their format, source, or constraints. With 2 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description adds some meaning but insufficient detail, meeting the baseline for partial compensation.
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 action ('Retrieve') and resource ('specific version of a workflow from the version history'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_workflow' (which likely retrieves the current/latest version) or 'list_workflows' (which lists workflows rather than versions).
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 alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer this over 'get_workflow' (for current version) or other sibling tools, nor does it specify prerequisites like needing a workflow ID and version ID from version history.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering but doesn't describe important behaviors: whether results are paginated, what the default sort order is, what permissions are required, whether it's a read-only operation, or what the response format looks like. The description is minimal and leaves critical behavioral aspects unspecified.
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 extremely concise - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality and available filters. Every word earns its place with no wasted text. The structure is front-loaded with the main purpose followed by filtering details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there's an output schema (which handles return values) and the tool has moderate complexity with 5 parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description should do more to explain behavioral aspects and parameter usage. It meets the bare minimum but leaves significant gaps in understanding how to effectively use the tool.
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?
The description mentions three filter parameters (workflow_id, status with enumerated values, project_id) which provides some semantic context beyond the schema's 0% description coverage. However, it doesn't mention the other two parameters (include_data and limit), leaving them completely undocumented. The description adds partial value but doesn't fully compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.
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 ('List') and resource ('workflow executions'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It also mentions filtering capabilities, which adds specificity. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling list tools like list_workflows or list_credentials, which would require a 5.
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 alternatives. While it mentions filtering parameters, it doesn't explain when to choose list_executions over get_execution (for single executions) or how it relates to other list tools. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 mentions filtering capabilities but doesn't describe pagination behavior (implied by 'limit' parameter), return format, permissions needed, rate limits, or whether it's read-only. For a listing tool with 5 parameters, this leaves significant gaps.
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 front-loads the core purpose ('List all workflows') followed by filtering options. Every word serves a purpose with zero waste or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the filtering parameters but lacks behavioral context and doesn't explain the 'limit' parameter, leaving room for improvement.
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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description lists the filtering options ('active status, tags, name, or project') which maps to 4 of the 5 parameters, but doesn't explain 'limit' or provide format details (e.g., how tags are specified). This adds some value but doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap.
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 ('List') and resource ('workflows') with specific filtering options ('active status, tags, name, or project'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_workflow' or 'list_executions', which would require a 5.
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 'get_workflow' (for single workflow details) or 'list_executions' (for workflow runs). The description only mentions optional filtering but doesn't help the agent choose between this and other listing tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 states the tool queries rows with optional features but lacks critical details: whether it's read-only, pagination behavior (implied by 'limit' parameter but not explained), error conditions, authentication needs, or rate limits. The description is minimal and doesn't compensate for missing annotations.
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 with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose ('Query rows from a data table') and succinctly lists optional features. Every word contributes to understanding without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description is incomplete—it doesn't fully explain parameter usage or behavioral traits. However, an output schema exists, so return values needn't be described. The description provides a basic overview but lacks depth for a query tool with multiple options.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'optional filtering, sorting, and full-text search,' which loosely maps to 'filter_json,' 'sort_by,' and 'search' parameters, adding some semantic context. However, it doesn't explain parameter formats (e.g., JSON structure for filters) or the required 'table_id,' leaving significant gaps. Baseline is adjusted upward from 1 due to partial parameter coverage.
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 action ('Query rows') and resource ('from a data table'), specifying the core functionality. It distinguishes this as a read operation from siblings like 'insert_table_rows' (write) and 'get_data_table' (metadata), but doesn't explicitly contrast with other query-like tools since none are listed among siblings.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description mentions optional features (filtering, sorting, search) but doesn't indicate prerequisites, constraints, or compare it to other data retrieval methods. Usage context is implied but not articulated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a mutation action ('Retry') but doesn't disclose permissions needed, side effects (e.g., overwriting previous attempts), rate limits, or what constitutes a 'failed' execution. The mention of 'load_workflow' hints at versioning behavior but lacks depth on outcomes or constraints.
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 appropriately sized with two concise sentences that are front-loaded: the first states the core purpose, and the second adds a key parameter detail. There is zero waste or redundancy, making it efficient for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a mutation tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic action and a parameter nuance, but lacks behavioral context, usage rules, and full parameter semantics. The output schema mitigates the need to explain return values, but overall it's adequate with clear gaps.
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 0%, so the description must compensate but only partially does. It explains 'load_workflow=true' to use the latest workflow version, adding meaning beyond the boolean schema. However, it doesn't clarify 'execution_id' (e.g., format, source) or the default behavior when 'load_workflow=false'. With 2 parameters and low coverage, this is a baseline adequate but incomplete effort.
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 ('Retry') and resource ('a failed execution'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'stop_execution' or 'delete_execution' by focusing on retrying rather than terminating or removing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'execute_workflow' in terms of re-running versus initial execution.
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 alternatives. It mentions 'load_workflow=true' for using the latest workflow version, but doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., only for failed executions) or compare to tools like 'execute_workflow' for new runs. This leaves the agent without clear context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 'Requires write_mode', which adds some behavioral context about permissions. However, it lacks details on what 'stop' entails (e.g., whether it's reversible, immediate, or has side effects), rate limits, or error conditions, which are critical for a mutation tool like this.
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 extremely concise with just two sentences, front-loading the core action ('Stop a running execution') and adding a critical prerequisite ('Requires write_mode'). Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, but an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic action and a permission requirement, but lacks parameter semantics and detailed behavioral traits, which are important for safe invocation.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It doesn't mention the 'execution_id' parameter at all, leaving the agent with no semantic context beyond what's in the schema (just a string title). This is a significant gap for a required parameter in a mutation tool.
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 ('stop') and resource ('a running execution'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_execution' or 'stop_many_executions', which would require more specific context about what 'stop' means versus 'delete' or 'stop_many'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some usage context by mentioning 'Requires write_mode', which implies a prerequisite condition. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_execution' or 'stop_many_executions', leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the workflow must be active. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this triggers real workflow execution, what happens to test data, authentication needs, rate limits, or response format. The description is minimal and leaves key behavioral aspects unspecified.
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 extremely concise with just two short sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place with no wasted text, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, but with an output schema present, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details about parameters, behavioral context, and usage guidance that would be needed for effective tool selection and invocation.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but adds minimal parameter semantics. It mentions 'test data' which aligns with one parameter, but doesn't explain webhook_path format, method options beyond default POST, or how test_data should be structured. The description doesn't adequately compensate for the schema coverage gap.
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 ('trigger') and resource ('workflow via its webhook URL with test data'), specifying it's for testing purposes. It distinguishes from siblings like execute_workflow by focusing on webhook testing rather than direct execution, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some context ('Workflow must be active') which implies a prerequisite, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like execute_workflow or when not to use it. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Requires write_mode', which hints at permission requirements, but doesn't describe other critical behaviors such as whether the update is idempotent, what happens on failure, if changes are reversible, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 extremely concise with only two sentences, front-loading the core purpose ('Update an existing credential') and adding a critical prerequisite ('Requires write_mode'). There is no wasted text, and every word serves a functional purpose, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there is an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), no annotations, and low schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and a prerequisite but lacks details on parameters, behavioral traits, and usage context, leaving gaps that could hinder effective tool invocation by an AI agent.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about the parameters (credential_id, name, data), their meanings, formats, or constraints. It doesn't compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving the agent with insufficient guidance on how to use the inputs effectively.
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 action ('Update') and resource ('an existing credential'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_credential' and 'delete_credential' by focusing on modification rather than creation or deletion. However, it doesn't specify what aspects of the credential can be updated (e.g., name, data), leaving some ambiguity compared to the schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some usage guidance by mentioning 'Requires write_mode', which implies a prerequisite condition for use. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_credential' for new credentials or 'delete_credential' for removal, nor does it clarify if there are specific scenarios where this tool is preferred over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Requires write_mode', hinting at authentication or permissions, but lacks details on what 'write_mode' entails, whether the update is reversible, how it affects existing tags, or error handling. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
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 front-loads the core action ('Update annotation tags on an execution') and adds a crucial constraint ('Requires write_mode') without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (which should cover return values), no annotations, and low schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate but has gaps. It addresses the basic purpose and a prerequisite, but lacks parameter details and fuller behavioral context needed for a mutation tool.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description doesn't explain what 'execution_id' or 'tag_ids' represent, their formats, or constraints (e.g., if tag_ids replace or append to existing tags). It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters poorly understood.
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 ('Update') and resource ('annotation tags on an execution'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_workflow_tags' or 'update_tag', which handle similar tag operations on different resources, so it doesn't achieve full sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some usage context by mentioning 'Requires write_mode', which implies a prerequisite or permission needed. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_tag' (for tag metadata) or 'update_workflow_tags' (for workflow tags), leaving the guidance incomplete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Requires write_mode,' which hints at permission needs, but doesn't describe what happens during renaming (e.g., if old tag references are updated, if it's reversible, rate limits, or error conditions). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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 extremely concise with just two sentences: 'Rename a tag. Requires write_mode.' Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core action. There's no wasted verbiage, making it highly efficient in communication.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there's an output schema (which should cover return values), the description doesn't need to explain outputs. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage for inputs, and minimal behavioral context, it's only partially complete. It covers the basic action and a prerequisite but misses details on parameters, side effects, and usage nuances.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the input schema provides no descriptions for parameters. The description doesn't add any semantic information about 'tag_id' (e.g., format, source) or 'name' (e.g., constraints, uniqueness), failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation. With two undocumented parameters, this is inadequate.
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 ('Rename') and resource ('a tag'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'update_workflow_tags' or 'update_execution_tags' which also modify tags in different contexts, so it doesn't reach the highest level of sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some usage context by mentioning 'Requires write_mode,' which implies a prerequisite condition. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_tag' or 'delete_tag,' nor does it provide exclusions or detailed contextual guidance beyond the basic requirement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 'Requires write_mode', which hints at authentication or permission needs, but doesn't disclose other behavioral traits such as whether the update is reversible, potential side effects, rate limits, or what the output contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
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 extremely concise—a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and a key requirement. It's front-loaded with the main action and resource, with no wasted words or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there is an output schema (which should cover return values), the description doesn't need to explain outputs. However, for a mutation tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is too minimal—it lacks details on parameter meanings, error conditions, or broader context, making it incomplete 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about what 'variable_id', 'key', or 'value' represent, their formats, or constraints. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters largely unexplained.
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 action ('Update') and resource ('an existing instance variable'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_variable' or 'delete_variable', though the 'existing' qualifier implies it's for modification rather than creation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some context with 'Requires write_mode', which implies a prerequisite condition for usage. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_variable' or 'delete_variable', nor does it mention any exclusions or edge cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies a write operation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects: whether this requires specific permissions, what happens on duplicate table names, whether tables can be modified after creation, or what the response contains. The mention of column requirements is helpful but insufficient for a mutation tool.
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 extremely concise - just two sentences that directly address the core functionality and parameter requirements. Every word serves a purpose with no wasted text. It's front-loaded with the main purpose followed by essential parameter guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation tool with no annotations but with an output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and parameter structure adequately. However, it lacks important context about behavioral aspects, error conditions, and usage guidelines that would be expected for a mutation tool. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but other gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant value by explaining the 'columns' parameter structure: columns need 'name' and 'type' with specific allowed values (string/number/boolean/dateTime). This compensates well for the schema's lack of documentation, though it doesn't mention the 'name' parameter's purpose or constraints.
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 resource 'new data table', making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'get_data_table' or 'list_data_tables' by focusing on creation rather than retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation tools like 'create_workflow' or 'create_tag' beyond the resource type.
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 alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate versus other data table operations, or any constraints on usage. With multiple sibling creation tools available, this lack of differentiation is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 mentions 'Requires write_mode', which hints at authentication needs, but fails to describe critical traits like whether deletion is permanent, if it affects associated workflows or executions, error conditions, or rate limits. For a destructive operation, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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 extremely concise with just two sentences, front-loading the core action ('Delete a tag') and following with a critical prerequisite ('Requires write_mode'). Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague language.
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 tool's destructive nature, no annotations, and an output schema (which might cover return values), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on permissions beyond 'write_mode', consequences of deletion, error handling, and how it interacts with sibling tools like 'update_tag' or 'get_tag'. For a delete operation, this leaves too many contextual gaps.
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?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It doesn't add any meaning to the 'tag_id' parameter beyond what's implied by the tool name. No details on format, source, or validation are provided. Since there's only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the lack of any parameter guidance reduces it to 3.
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 action ('Delete') and the resource ('a tag'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'update_tag' or 'get_tag' by specifying deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what happens to associated data (e.g., if tag is removed from workflows), which prevents 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 Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some guidance by stating 'Requires write_mode', which implies a prerequisite permission context. However, it doesn't explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_tag' for modification or clarify if deletion is irreversible. No specific exclusions or comparisons to siblings are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., what happens if an invalid credential_type is provided), authentication requirements, rate limits, or response format details. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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 front-loads the core purpose with no wasted words. It uses parentheses to include helpful examples without cluttering the main statement, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), low complexity (one parameter), and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete for its purpose. It clearly states what the tool does and provides parameter context, though it lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details that would be beneficial for full completeness.
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?
The description adds meaning by explaining that the 'credential_type' parameter specifies the type (e.g., 'slackApi', 'githubApi'), which clarifies its purpose beyond the schema's generic 'Credential Type' title. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this is adequate but not exceptional, aligning with the baseline expectation for minimal parameter complexity.
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 ('Get') and resource ('required fields for a credential type'), with specific examples ('slackApi', 'githubApi') that help illustrate the purpose. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'list_credentials' or 'create_credential', which would require a 5.
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. For instance, it doesn't mention if this should be used before 'create_credential' to understand required fields, or how it differs from 'list_credentials' which might list existing credentials rather than schema details.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool retrieves 'detailed information' including 'per-node inputs and outputs', which hints at read-only behavior and output structure. However, it lacks critical details: whether it requires authentication, rate limits, error conditions (e.g., invalid execution_id), or pagination. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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 front-loads the core purpose ('Get detailed information about a specific execution') and adds specificity ('including per-node inputs and outputs'). Every word earns its place with zero waste or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and low schema coverage, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core purpose and key parameter implications. However, for a read operation with no annotations, it could better address authentication or error handling to reach a 5.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies 'execution_id' is needed to identify a specific execution, and 'include_data' controls whether per-node data is included, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain parameter formats (e.g., execution_id syntax) or default behavior for include_data, partially compensating but not fully.
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 'Get' and the resource 'detailed information about a specific execution', specifying it includes 'per-node inputs and outputs'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_executions' (which lists multiple) and 'get_execution_tags' (which focuses on tags). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_workflow' or other getters, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.
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 alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an execution_id from list_executions), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_execution_tags' or 'list_executions'. Usage is implied by the name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions prerequisites but lacks details on what 'pull' entails (e.g., merges changes, updates local repo, potential conflicts), rate limits, error handling, or output format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 appropriately sized with two concise sentences that front-load key information: the action and prerequisites. There's no wasted text, and it efficiently communicates the essentials without unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a Git operation with prerequisites), no annotations, and an output schema present (which may cover return values), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers purpose and usage guidelines adequately but lacks parameter details and behavioral context, making it minimally viable but not fully comprehensive.
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?
The input schema has 1 parameter ('force') with 0% description coverage, and the tool description doesn't mention any parameters. Since schema coverage is low (<50%), the description should compensate by explaining parameter meanings, but it adds no information beyond the schema. This leaves the 'force' parameter undocumented in both places.
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 ('pull') and resource ('changes from the connected Git repository'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'activate_workflow' or 'execute_workflow', which are unrelated but share the same server context, so it misses full sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool by stating prerequisites: 'Requires write_mode and source control configured.' This gives explicit guidance on necessary conditions. However, it doesn't mention when not to use it or name alternatives, such as other source control operations not listed in siblings, so it falls short of full explicit alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the 'write_mode' requirement, which is useful context about permissions. However, it fails to describe critical behaviors: whether the deletion is permanent or reversible, what happens to associated data (e.g., execution tags), error conditions, or the response format. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
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 extremely concise with just two sentences: the first states the core action, and the second adds the critical prerequisite. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy or fluff. It's front-loaded with the primary function, making it efficient for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a destructive operation with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, but with an output schema (which handles return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic action and a key requirement ('write_mode'), but misses important context like deletion permanence, side effects, and parameter details. The output schema reduces the burden, but more behavioral transparency would be needed for full completeness.
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?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'execution' which aligns with the 'execution_id' parameter, providing some semantic context. However, it doesn't explain what an execution ID is, its format, or how to obtain it (e.g., from 'list_executions' or 'get_execution'). The description adds minimal value beyond the parameter name itself.
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 action ('Delete') and target resource ('an execution from the history'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'delete_workflow' or 'delete_tag' by specifying the resource type. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools like 'stop_execution' or 'retry_execution', 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 Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some guidance with 'Requires write_mode', indicating a prerequisite condition for use. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'stop_execution' (which halts but doesn't delete) or clarify if deletions are permanent versus reversible. The guidance is implied rather than explicit about tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 mentions the write_mode requirement, which is useful, but doesn't describe what 'delete' entails (permanent vs reversible, cascading effects, confirmation process), nor does it address rate limits, error conditions, or response format. For a destructive operation, this leaves significant gaps.
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 extremely concise at just two short sentences, with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds the critical permission requirement. Every element earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a destructive operation with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, but with an output schema present, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and permission requirement but lacks details about the deletion behavior, parameter meaning, and relationship to sibling tools. The output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but more context would be helpful.
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?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, providing only a parameter name without context. The description doesn't mention the 'variable_id' parameter at all, offering no additional semantic information about what constitutes a valid variable ID, where to find it, or format requirements. However, with only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the complete lack of parameter guidance in the description reduces this to 3.
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 action ('Delete') and resource ('an instance variable'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this from sibling tools like 'delete_credential', 'delete_tag', or 'delete_workflow' beyond specifying the resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes one usage guideline ('Requires write_mode'), which provides important context about permissions needed. However, it doesn't specify when to use this versus alternatives like 'update_variable' or 'list_variables', nor does it mention any prerequisites beyond the mode requirement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the permission requirement ('Requires write_mode'), which is valuable context. However, it doesn't describe what 'delete' entails (e.g., permanent vs reversible, cascading effects on related resources like executions), nor does it address rate limits, error conditions, or response format. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
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 extremely concise at just two sentences, with zero wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds crucial permission context. Every element earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the primary action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a destructive operation with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, but with an output schema present, the description is minimally adequate. The permission requirement is helpful, but it doesn't address behavioral aspects like irreversibility or side effects. The output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but more context about the deletion's nature would improve completeness.
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?
The description doesn't mention the 'workflow_id' parameter at all, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the parameter is undocumented in both places. However, with only one parameter, the agent can reasonably infer that 'workflow_id' identifies which workflow to delete. The description adds no value beyond this basic inference, meeting the baseline for minimal parameter documentation.
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 action ('Delete') and resource ('a workflow'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'deactivate_workflow' by specifying permanent removal rather than state change. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other deletion tools like 'delete_credential' or 'delete_tag', leaving some ambiguity about scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides implicit guidance by mentioning 'Requires write_mode', suggesting this tool should be used when write permissions are available. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'deactivate_workflow' (for temporary disabling) or 'update_workflow' (for modification), nor does it mention prerequisites beyond the permission requirement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Requires write_mode', hinting at permission needs, but lacks details on critical traits like whether the operation is idempotent, how errors are handled (e.g., partial inserts), rate limits, or what happens on duplicate rows. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 two sentences that are front-loaded with the core action and efficiently convey key details without waste. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the operation and data structure, the second notes a prerequisite. There's no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a write operation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema present (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter hints but lacks behavioral context like error handling or permissions details. With output schema handling returns, it's complete enough for basic use but has gaps for robust agent operation.
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?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that 'rows' is an array where each row is a dict of column_name:value, clarifying the structure beyond the schema's generic 'object' type. However, it doesn't detail 'table_id' (e.g., format or source) or provide examples, leaving some parameters only partially explained. This meets the baseline for low schema coverage but doesn't fully compensate.
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 action ('Insert rows') and resource ('data table'), specifying that each row is a dict of column_name:value. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'query_table_rows' (read) and 'create_data_table' (create table structure). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential overlapping tools like 'update_workflow' that might also modify data, making it a 4 rather than a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some guidance by mentioning 'Requires write_mode', which implies a prerequisite or context for usage. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_workflow' or 'create_data_table', nor does it specify exclusions or detailed scenarios. This leaves usage somewhat implied rather than fully explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 states the tool lists tags but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as pagination (implied by the 'limit' parameter), sorting, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what 'instance' refers to (e.g., workspace, system). The description is minimal and leaves key operational details unspecified.
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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('List all tags'), making it easy to scan. Every word contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is somewhat complete. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, it lacks context on behavior (e.g., pagination, errors) and parameter meaning, leaving gaps for an AI agent to infer usage.
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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it mentions no parameters. The input schema includes a 'limit' parameter (with default null), but the description doesn't explain its purpose (e.g., to restrict the number of tags returned). Since there's only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema, so it scores lower.
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 action ('List') and resource ('all tags in the instance'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_tag' (which retrieves a specific tag) and 'create_tag'/'update_tag'/'delete_tag' (which modify tags). However, it doesn't specify the scope beyond 'all tags' (e.g., whether it includes archived tags).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when needing to retrieve multiple tags rather than a single one (vs. 'get_tag') or when modifying tags (vs. create/update/delete_tag). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_execution_tags' or 'get_workflow_tags', which might list tags for specific resources. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 'Requires write_mode', hinting at permission needs, but lacks details on whether the deletion is permanent, reversible, has side effects, rate limits, or error handling. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
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 extremely concise with two short sentences, front-loading the core action and a key requirement. Every word serves a purpose, with no wasted text or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (destructive operation), lack of annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It misses critical behavioral details like permanence or effects, though the output schema may cover return values. It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description doesn't add parameter details beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. However, with only one parameter ('credential_id'), the schema's title 'Credential Id' provides basic clarity, and the description's focus on the action compensates minimally. Baseline is high due to low parameter count.
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 action ('Delete') and target resource ('a credential'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_tag', 'delete_variable', or 'delete_workflow' beyond the resource type, missing explicit distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides some guidance by mentioning 'Requires write_mode', which implies a prerequisite context for usage. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_credential' or 'list_credentials', nor does it outline exclusions or detailed scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 of behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies a write operation, the description doesn't mention permission requirements, whether the credential is immediately usable, potential side effects, or error conditions. It adds minimal context beyond the basic action.
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 extremely concise with just two sentences that each serve a clear purpose: the first states the tool's function, the second provides essential usage guidance. There's no wasted language or redundancy, making it efficiently front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there's an output schema (which handles return values) but no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It provides good usage guidance but lacks parameter explanations and behavioral context needed for a creation tool. The presence of an output schema prevents this from being a complete failure, but significant gaps remain.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the three parameters (name, credential_type, data) have descriptions in the schema. The description doesn't explain what these parameters mean, what format 'data' should take, or what 'credential_type' refers to. It only mentions using another tool to discover required fields, which doesn't compensate for the lack of parameter semantics.
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 action ('Create') and resource ('credential'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'update_credential' or 'delete_credential' by specifying creation rather than modification or deletion. However, it doesn't specify what type of credential or system context, which keeps it from being fully specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly provides when-to-use guidance by stating 'Use get_credential_schema to discover required fields first.' This gives a clear prerequisite and alternative tool to use beforehand, helping the agent understand the proper sequence of operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the requirement for 'write_mode', which is useful context about permissions. However, it lacks details on other behavioral traits: it doesn't specify if the creation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate names, the response format (though an output schema exists), or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two short sentences, front-loading the main action ('Create a new tag') and following with a critical requirement ('Requires write_mode'). There is zero waste, and every sentence adds value, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a simple creation operation with one parameter), the description covers the basic purpose and a key requirement. However, with no annotations and an output schema present, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling or idempotency. The description is minimal but adequate for the context, though it could be more complete by addressing potential issues like duplicates.
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?
The description does not mention any parameters, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema alone documents the 'name' parameter. The description adds no semantic information about the parameter, such as format constraints or examples. With only one parameter and no schema descriptions, the baseline is 3, as the schema provides the basic structure but the description doesn't compensate for the lack of coverage.
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 action ('Create') and resource ('a new tag'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'delete_tag', 'update_tag', and 'list_tags' by specifying creation rather than other operations. However, it doesn't specify what a 'tag' is in this context, which could help differentiate from other creation tools like 'create_credential' or 'create_workflow'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states 'Requires write_mode', providing clear context about when to use this tool (when in write mode). It implies usage for creating new tags, distinguishing from 'update_tag' for modifications or 'list_tags' for viewing. However, it doesn't specify alternatives or exclusions, such as when not to use it or what happens if a tag with the same name exists.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It usefully discloses that secrets are never exposed (a key security constraint) and specifies 'metadata only' output. However, it doesn't mention pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what specific metadata fields are returned, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.
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 front-loads the core purpose ('List all credentials') and immediately adds crucial behavioral context ('metadata only — secrets are never exposed'). Every word earns its place with zero wasted text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, read-only operation), the presence of an output schema, and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the key security constraint about secrets and specifies metadata-only returns. For a basic list operation, this provides adequate context, though additional behavioral details would enhance completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema (which has 0% description coverage for the single 'limit' parameter). However, with only one optional parameter and an output schema present, the description adequately compensates by focusing on output behavior. The baseline would be 3 for high schema coverage, but with 0% coverage and minimal parameters, a 4 is appropriate as the description provides sufficient context for tool selection.
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 ('List') and resource ('credentials') with a specific scope ('all'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_credential_schema' by focusing on listing metadata rather than schema details. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'list_data_tables' or 'list_workflows' beyond the resource type.
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 alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or comparisons to other credential-related tools like 'create_credential' or 'update_credential'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 describes the validation process and output report, adding useful context beyond basic creation. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling, leaving gaps for a mutation tool with complex behavior.
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 front-loaded with key actions and outcomes in three efficient sentences. Each sentence adds value: creation with validation, output details, and prerequisites. It avoids redundancy but could be slightly more structured for readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, nested objects, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers core functionality and output but lacks details on parameter semantics and behavioral nuances. It is minimally adequate but has clear gaps in context.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only mentions 'test_data' explicitly, leaving 'name', 'nodes', 'connections', and 'settings' unexplained. This adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to adequately clarify parameter meanings.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates a workflow with automatic double-validation, specifying the validation steps (structural check, two execution passes, consistency comparison) and the output (PASS/FAIL report). It distinguishes from sibling 'create_workflow' by emphasizing validation, making the purpose specific and differentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for usage: it requires 'write_mode' and 'test_data for meaningful functional testing', indicating prerequisites. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_workflow' or 'execute_workflow', missing explicit sibling differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 indicates this is a mutation operation ('Replace all tags') and mentions a prerequisite ('Requires write_mode'), which adds useful context about permissions. However, it lacks details on side effects (e.g., whether old tags are permanently removed), error handling, or response format, leaving behavioral traits partially covered.
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 extremely concise—two short sentences with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and follows with a critical prerequisite, making it easy to scan and understand quickly. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and low complexity, the description is partially complete. It covers the action and a key prerequisite but misses parameter semantics and full behavioral context (e.g., idempotency, errors). This leaves gaps that could hinder an agent's ability to use the tool correctly.
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?
The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning neither parameter has descriptions in the schema. The description does not explain what 'workflow_id' or 'tag_ids' represent, their formats, or constraints (e.g., if tag_ids must be existing tags). It adds no meaning beyond the bare schema, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Replace all tags') on a specific resource ('on a workflow'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'update_workflow' (which likely updates other workflow properties) and 'update_execution_tags' (which targets executions rather than workflows). It uses precise language that avoids tautology.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states 'Requires write_mode,' providing clear context about when to use this tool (i.e., when write permissions are available). However, it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'get_workflow_tags' for reading tags or 'update_workflow' for other updates, leaving some guidance gaps.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 discloses that the tool deactivates workflows (implying mutation) and requires write_mode (indicating permission needs), which are useful behavioral traits. However, it lacks details on side effects (e.g., whether deactivation is reversible), rate limits, or error conditions, leaving gaps in transparency.
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 two sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose and effect, and the second specifies the prerequisite. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making every sentence earn its place without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation with no annotations) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage context, and behavioral aspects but lacks details on parameter semantics and full behavioral transparency, leaving minor gaps in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It implies the parameter is a workflow identifier but does not explicitly explain 'workflow_id' semantics (e.g., format or source). Since there is only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but it misses an opportunity to fully clarify the parameter's meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('deactivate') and resource ('workflow'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'activate_workflow' and 'delete_workflow' by specifying that triggers stop running rather than removing the workflow entirely. It provides a precise verb+resource combination with functional differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states 'Requires write_mode,' which provides clear context for when to use this tool (when write permissions are available). However, it does not mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives like 'activate_workflow' for re-enabling, leaving some guidance implicit rather than fully explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![n8n-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Siddharth0903/n8n-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Siddharth0903/n8n-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![n8n-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Siddharth0903/n8n-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Siddharth0903/n8n-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/Siddharth0903/n8n-mcp'

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