Retrieve detailed information about a specific n8n execution by ID, optionally including its data and results for monitoring or debugging.
Get detailed information about a specific execution
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| executionId | Yes | The ID of the execution to retrieve | |
| includeData | No | Include execution data and results (default: true) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read operation via 'Get' but does not state permissions, rate limits, or what 'detailed information' includes; the includeData behavior is left entirely to the schema.
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?
Single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.
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?
For a simple read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description plus schema is sufficient for correct invocation. It lacks usage guidance, but that gap is captured in the usage guidelines dimension.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is the baseline when schema coverage is high.
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?
States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('execution'), and scope ('a specific execution'). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling list_executions or explicitly say retrieval is by ID.
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?
Provides no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and does not name alternatives such as list_executions. Usage is only implied by the word 'specific'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.