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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.