n8n-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering but doesn't describe important behaviors: whether results are paginated, what the default sort order is, what permissions are required, whether it's a read-only operation, or what the response format looks like. The description is minimal and leaves critical behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality and available filters. Every word earns its place with no wasted text. The structure is front-loaded with the main purpose followed by filtering details.

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 handles return values) and the tool has moderate complexity with 5 parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description should do more to explain behavioral aspects and parameter usage. It meets the bare minimum but leaves significant gaps in understanding how to effectively use the tool.

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 description mentions three filter parameters (workflow_id, status with enumerated values, project_id) which provides some semantic context beyond the schema's 0% description coverage. However, it doesn't mention the other two parameters (include_data and limit), leaving them completely undocumented. The description adds partial value but doesn't fully compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 ('List') and resource ('workflow executions'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It also mentions filtering capabilities, which adds specificity. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling list tools like list_workflows or list_credentials, which would require a 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. While it mentions filtering parameters, it doesn't explain when to choose list_executions over get_execution (for single executions) or how it relates to other list tools. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.

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