Connect two nodes in an n8n workflow by defining source and target node IDs, enabling automated data flow between them.
Create a connection between two nodes in a workflow
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| connection | Yes | Connection configuration | |
| workflowId | Yes | The workflow ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It doesn't disclose whether this operation is reversible, requires specific permissions, affects workflow execution, or returns anything. For a mutation tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action. It is concise with no wasted words, though it could benefit from more detail.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (mutation with nested objects, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details, usage context, and parameter nuances that an agent would need to invoke it correctly.
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 the schema already documents all parameters and their nested fields. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states a clear verb+resource: 'Create a connection between two nodes in a workflow.' This is specific but lacks differentiation from siblings like create_node or update_node. It doesn't clarify what a connection represents or how it relates to the workflow structure.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't state prerequisites (e.g., nodes must exist) or exclusions. The description merely restates the action without context for selection among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.