Skip to main content
Glama

n8n: Duplicate workflow

n8n_duplicate_workflow
Destructive

Create a copy of an existing workflow under a new name to reuse or modify automations without rebuilding them from scratch.

Instructions

[UNIFIED] Create a copy of an existing workflow with a new name.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "site": "<site>",
      "workflow_id": "<workflow_id>",
      "new_name": "<new_name>"
    },
    "name": "n8n_duplicate_workflow"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteYes
new_nameYes
workflow_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv3.14.0
  2. Removedv3.13.1
  3. First observedv3.4.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, which is counterintuitive for a 'copy' operation, yet the description does nothing to explain it — an agent cannot tell why duplication is destructive or whether it overwrites an existing same-named workflow. It also omits what the copy inherits (tags, active state, settings, credentials) and that a new persistent workflow is created.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One short front-loaded sentence with no wasted clauses. The bracketed '[UNIFIED]' tag is unexplained and does not earn its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a three-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description is thin: the caller does not learn what is returned (presumably the new workflow's ID), what the copy contains, or how the destructive hint applies.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It maps loosely to workflow_id ('existing workflow') and new_name ('a new name'), but the required 'site' parameter is never mentioned and no format, identifier type, or naming constraints are given.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Create a copy of an existing workflow with a new name.' This clearly separates it from create_workflow (new from scratch) and update_workflow. The unexplained '[UNIFIED]' prefix adds noise but does not obscure the purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to duplicate versus creating a new workflow, exporting/importing, or updating the original. Nothing about prerequisites such as whether the source workflow must exist, be accessible, or whether the new name must be unique.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools