Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP Hub

MCP Hub

by airano-ir
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

n8n: Stop execution

n8n_stop_execution
Destructive

Stops a currently running workflow execution in n8n by specifying the site and execution ID, letting you halt a specific run before it finishes.

Instructions

[UNIFIED] Stop a currently running execution.

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>",
      "execution_id": "<execution_id>"
    },
    "name": "n8n_stop_execution"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteYes
execution_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 declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the 'currently running' qualifier and says nothing about graceful versus hard termination, what happens to execution output, or the error returned when the execution is already finished.

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 filler in the body text. The bracketed '[UNIFIED]' token is the only wasted element.

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?

This is a destructive mutation with no output schema and zero parameter documentation, so the description should explain target validity and outcomes. Instead it is a single generic sentence that leaves the agent guessing about state requirements and failure modes.

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 and fails to explain the format of execution_id or what 'site' refers to. Only the word 'execution' loosely hints at execution_id, leaving 'site' entirely undefined.

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?

The description states a concrete verb and resource ('Stop a currently running execution'), which is enough to separate it from delete_execution or retry_execution by name alone. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix is unexplained noise that adds no distinguishing meaning.

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 guidance on when to stop versus delete, retry, or wait for an execution, and no mention of preconditions such as the execution actually being in a running state. The agent must infer everything from the tool name.

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