Retrieve recent n8n workflow executions and filter them by status, workflow ID, or result limit to monitor runs and diagnose failures.
Get recent workflow executions with optional filtering
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of executions to return (default: 20, max: 100) | |
| status | No | Filter by execution status (optional) | |
| workflowId | No | Filter by specific workflow ID (optional) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether results are ordered, whether pagination exists, what the default limit behavior means for callers, or confirm the read-only nature beyond the verb 'Get'.
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?
A single front-loaded clause with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification for a filtering API.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only place behavior could be explained, and it says nothing about return ordering, result shape, or pagination limits. For a three-parameter list tool this leaves meaningful gaps.
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%: the limit bounds/default, the status enum, and workflowId all have inline descriptions. The description's 'optional filtering' merely restates that these filters exist, adding no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
The description names a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('workflow executions') with a scope qualifier ('recent'), so an agent understands it is a list/read operation. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_execution, which is why it falls short of a 5.
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?
It states that filtering is optional but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_execution (single) or list_workflows, and no prerequisites or ordering context. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.