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 the tool queries rows with optional features but lacks critical details: whether it's read-only, pagination behavior (implied by 'limit' parameter but not explained), error conditions, authentication needs, or rate limits. The description is minimal and doesn't compensate for missing annotations.

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 with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose ('Query rows from a data table') and succinctly lists optional features. Every word contributes to understanding without 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 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description is incomplete—it doesn't fully explain parameter usage or behavioral traits. However, an output schema exists, so return values needn't be described. The description provides a basic overview but lacks depth for a query tool with multiple options.

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 mentions 'optional filtering, sorting, and full-text search,' which loosely maps to 'filter_json,' 'sort_by,' and 'search' parameters, adding some semantic context. However, it doesn't explain parameter formats (e.g., JSON structure for filters) or the required 'table_id,' leaving significant gaps. Baseline is adjusted upward from 1 due to partial parameter coverage.

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 ('Query rows') and resource ('from a data table'), specifying the core functionality. It distinguishes this as a read operation from siblings like 'insert_table_rows' (write) and 'get_data_table' (metadata), but doesn't explicitly contrast with other query-like tools since none are listed among siblings.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description mentions optional features (filtering, sorting, search) but doesn't indicate prerequisites, constraints, or compare it to other data retrieval methods. Usage context is implied but not articulated.

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