MCP Hub

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 clearly explains the dual state change: automatic execution stops while manual execution remains possible. It does not address idempotency or error cases (e.g., if already deactivated), but covers the primary behavioral trait.

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?

Two efficient sentences with zero waste. The first states the action immediately; the second explains the specific behavioral consequence. Every sentence earns its place.

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's simplicity (a state toggle with 2 string parameters and no output schema), the description adequately covers the functional behavior. The only significant gap is the lack of parameter semantics, though the operation is simple enough that this is not critical.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage and the description text provides no guidance on the 'site' or 'workflow_id' parameters. While 'workflow_id' is semantically clear, 'site' is ambiguous without documentation, and the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 uses the specific verb 'Deactivate' with the resource 'workflow' and clearly distinguishes this from deletion by clarifying the workflow 'can still be executed manually.' This effectively differentiates it from sibling tools like n8n_delete_workflow and n8n_activate_workflow.

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 implies usage context by explaining that the workflow 'will no longer run automatically but can still be executed manually,' which guides when to use this (pausing) versus deletion. However, it does not explicitly name the complementary n8n_activate_workflow as the alternative for reactivation.

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