Retrieve all n8n workflows with status and metadata, optionally filtered by active state, to monitor and manage automation inventory.
Get all workflows with their status and metadata
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| active | No | Filter by active status (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 provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says 'all workflows' but does not mention the optional active filter, pagination, result size limits, or ordering, leaving the agent without context on how the listing actually behaves.
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 efficient sentence with no filler and the core action front-loaded. It is arguably too terse rather than padded, so it does not reach 5.
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 one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It omits the existence of the filter and any return-shape hints, which would have been easy to include.
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% and the single 'active' parameter is documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's phrase 'all workflows' actually omits mention of the filter, adding no meaning beyond the schema.
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 has a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('workflows') with scope ('all') plus the payload contents ('status and metadata'). It does not explicitly contrast with the singular sibling get_workflow, so it falls short of the 5-level sibling differentiation.
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?
No indication of when to use this list tool versus get_workflow for a single workflow, nor any prerequisites. The agent must infer the plural/singular distinction from the tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.