Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP Hub

MCP Hub

by airano-ir
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

n8n: Get tag

n8n_get_tag
Read-only

Fetch tag details by ID for a specified site to inspect tag metadata and support content organization workflows.

Instructions

[UNIFIED] Get tag details by ID.

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>",
      "tag_id": "<tag_id>"
    },
    "name": "n8n_get_tag"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteYes
tag_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

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

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this is a safe read, so the description needs to add context such as not-found behavior, whether the tag is scoped to a site/instance, or what fields come back — none of which it does. It contributes nothing beyond the annotation and the tool name.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is good, but '[UNIFIED]' is noise and the extreme brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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 and zero schema description coverage, the description should tell the agent what 'details' are returned and what 'site' means. Neither is covered, so an agent cannot confidently construct a correct call from the definition alone.

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 both parameters, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only implies that tag_id is an ID. The 'site' parameter — likely an instance/tenant selector — is completely unexplained in both schema and description, which is a meaningful gap for a required parameter.

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 (get tag details) and constrains the lookup to an ID, which distinguishes it from list-style siblings. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix is unexplained jargon that adds no meaning, and the description doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling getters like n8n_get_workflow_tags.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g. use the workflow-tags tool when you only have a workflow), and no stated preconditions. The only implicit signal is 'by ID', which tells an agent it needs an identifier but not when this tool is the right choice.

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