Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP Hub

MCP Hub

by airano-ir
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

n8n: Export workflow

n8n_export_workflow
Read-only

Export a workflow as JSON to create backups or share it with others.

Instructions

[UNIFIED] Export a workflow as JSON. Can be used for backup or sharing.

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>"
    },
    "name": "n8n_export_workflow"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteYes
workflow_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

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

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe, non-mutating read, and the description is consistent with it. It adds the useful detail that the result is JSON, but says nothing about what the export contains (full node definitions? credentials? tags?), size limits, or whether the JSON is returned inline or as a file.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the output format. No padding, though the brevity is partly the source of the gaps elsewhere.

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?

With no output schema, zero schema coverage, and an unexplained "site" parameter, the definition leaves too much unspecified for reliable invocation. A read-only tool lowers the risk, but the agent still lacks any basis for filling in required parameters.

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% for two required parameters, so the description carries the full burden and does nothing: it never explains what "site" refers to (an instance URL, a tenant key?) or what form "workflow_id" takes. An agent must guess both required inputs.

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 ("Export a workflow as JSON"), which clearly separates it from n8n_import_workflow and other mutation siblings. It does not explicitly name a distinguishing alternative, but the export framing is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

"Can be used for backup or sharing" gives a use context but no real routing guidance — it never says when to prefer this over n8n_get_workflow or how it differs from n8n_import_workflow as the inverse operation. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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