Run an n8n workflow by ID or name, pass input data, and optionally wait for completion to retrieve execution results.
Execute an n8n workflow by ID or name with advanced options and monitoring
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | Input data for the workflow (optional) | |
| workflowId | Yes | The workflow ID or name to execute | |
| waitForCompletion | No | Wait for workflow completion before returning |
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 the full burden. 'Execute' implies triggering a workflow with side effects, but the description never says what happens on success (execution ID returned?), whether it runs synchronously by default, or what monitoring actually entails beyond the schema's waitForCompletion flag.
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 sentence with no wasted preamble. However, 'advanced options and monitoring' is vague filler that does not earn its place.
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 an execution-triggering tool with no output schema, the description should explain what executing returns and how to follow up (e.g., poll get_execution_status), plus async vs sync behavior. None of that is present.
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 baseline is 3. The description echoes the ID-or-name dual lookup and vaguely alludes to 'advanced options' without adding syntax or format detail 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?
States a specific verb ('Execute') and resource ('n8n workflow') and notes ID-or-name lookup. It is distinguishable from siblings like list_workflows or activate_workflow, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.
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 guidance on when to execute versus when to use get_execution_status, activate_workflow, or list_executions. The phrase 'advanced options and monitoring' gestures at context but gives no condition that selects this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.