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 states 'Retrieve' implying a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output contains (though an output schema exists). For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, this is minimal disclosure.

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. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, but with an output schema present, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks usage context, parameter details, and behavioral transparency. The output schema mitigates the need to describe return values, but gaps remain for a read operation in a complex workflow system.

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 parameters for 'workflow_id' and 'version_id' by mentioning 'specific version' and 'version history', but doesn't explain their format, source, or constraints. With 2 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description adds some meaning but insufficient detail, meeting the baseline for partial compensation.

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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('specific version of a workflow from the version history'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_workflow' (which likely retrieves the current/latest version) or 'list_workflows' (which lists workflows rather than versions).

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 when to prefer this over 'get_workflow' (for current version) or other sibling tools, nor does it specify prerequisites like needing a workflow ID and version ID from version history.

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