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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.