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 mentions filtering capabilities but doesn't describe pagination behavior (implied by 'limit' parameter), return format, permissions needed, rate limits, or whether it's read-only. For a listing tool with 5 parameters, this leaves significant 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 ('List all workflows') followed by filtering options. Every word serves a purpose 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), 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the filtering parameters but lacks behavioral context and doesn't explain the 'limit' parameter, leaving room for improvement.

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 schema provides no parameter documentation. The description lists the filtering options ('active status, tags, name, or project') which maps to 4 of the 5 parameters, but doesn't explain 'limit' or provide format details (e.g., how tags are specified). This adds some value but doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('workflows') with specific filtering options ('active status, tags, name, or project'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_workflow' or 'list_executions', 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_workflow' (for single workflow details) or 'list_executions' (for workflow runs). The description only mentions optional filtering but doesn't help the agent choose between this and other listing tools.

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