n8n-mcp

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.