n8n-mcp

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.