n8n-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool retrieves 'detailed information' including 'per-node inputs and outputs', which hints at read-only behavior and output structure. However, it lacks critical details: whether it requires authentication, rate limits, error conditions (e.g., invalid execution_id), or pagination. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get detailed information about a specific execution') and adds specificity ('including per-node inputs and outputs'). Every word earns its place with zero waste or redundancy.

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), no annotations, and low schema coverage, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core purpose and key parameter implications. However, for a read operation with no annotations, it could better address authentication or error handling to reach a 5.

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. It implies 'execution_id' is needed to identify a specific execution, and 'include_data' controls whether per-node data is included, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain parameter formats (e.g., execution_id syntax) or default behavior for include_data, partially compensating but not fully.

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 the resource 'detailed information about a specific execution', specifying it includes 'per-node inputs and outputs'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_executions' (which lists multiple) and 'get_execution_tags' (which focuses on tags). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_workflow' or other getters, keeping it at 4 rather than 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an execution_id from list_executions), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_execution_tags' or 'list_executions'. Usage is implied by the name and description alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.