n8n-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'Get[s] detailed information', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'detailed information' entails beyond the listed elements. This is a significant gap 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 ('Get detailed information about a specific workflow') and adds specifics ('including its nodes, connections, and settings') without waste. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 a simple input schema with 1 parameter, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details, leaving gaps in completeness for a tool that might involve complex workflow data.

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 (workflow_id) with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic context. The description doesn't mention parameters at all, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage. However, with only 1 parameter, the baseline is higher; it implicitly suggests a workflow_id is needed but adds no meaning beyond the schema's title.

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 workflow', specifying what information is retrieved (nodes, connections, and settings). It distinguishes from siblings like list_workflows (which lists workflows) but doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_workflow_version (which might retrieve version-specific details).

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 a workflow_id), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like get_workflow_version or list_workflows, leaving usage context implied at best.

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