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 a tag by ID but does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, error handling (e.g., if the tag doesn't exist), authentication needs, or rate limits. This leaves gaps in understanding how the tool operates beyond its basic purpose.

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 with no wasted words, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with the core action. It efficiently communicates the tool's intent without unnecessary elaboration, fitting well within the context of a simple retrieval tool.

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's low complexity (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage, behavior, and parameter semantics that would enhance agent understanding. The output schema likely handles return values, reducing the need for description elaboration, but overall completeness is adequate with clear gaps.

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 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'by ID' which adds meaning to the 'tag_id' parameter, but does not specify the ID format (e.g., string type, length, or examples). This provides minimal semantic value beyond the schema's basic structure.

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 states the tool's purpose as 'Get a specific tag by ID,' which includes a verb ('Get') and resource ('tag'), but it is vague about what 'Get' entails (e.g., retrieving details or metadata). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_tags' by specifying retrieval by ID, but lacks detail on the scope of information returned.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage when a specific tag ID is known, but does not mention when to use 'list_tags' for broader queries or other tag-related tools like 'update_tag' or 'delete_tag'. The description offers no context on prerequisites or exclusions.

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