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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.