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 states the action ('Stop multiple executions') but doesn't explain what 'stop' means operationally (pause, cancel, terminate?), whether it's reversible, permission requirements, side effects, or rate limits. The mention of status options adds some context but insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 with two sentences that directly address the tool's function and one parameter. Every word serves a purpose with zero waste or redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core action followed by specific filtering detail.

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?

For a batch mutation tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and sibling tools offering similar/destructive operations, this description is inadequate. While an output schema exists, the description fails to explain critical behavioral aspects, parameter usage beyond status, or differentiation from alternatives. The agent would struggle to use this correctly.

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 only mentions 'status' parameter with its possible values, ignoring the other 3 parameters (workflow_id, started_after, started_before). This leaves 75% of parameters undocumented in both schema and description, creating significant gaps for the agent.

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 ('Stop') and resource ('multiple executions') with specific filtering criteria. It distinguishes from the sibling 'stop_execution' by indicating batch/multiple operations rather than single execution. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'delete_execution' which might be a related destructive operation.

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 minimal guidance on when to use this tool, mentioning only status options for filtering. It doesn't explain when to choose this over 'stop_execution' (single vs. batch), 'delete_execution' (stop vs. delete), or 'retry_execution' (stop vs. retry). No prerequisites, limitations, or alternative scenarios are mentioned.

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