Fetch detailed information for a specific n8n workflow, including its nodes and connections, by ID. Use it to inspect or debug automation flows.
Get detailed information about a specific workflow including nodes and connections
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 the full behavioral burden, yet it only implies a read via the verb 'Get'. It says nothing about safety/reversibility, authorization needs, or behavior when the workflowId does not exist, leaving meaningful gaps for a zero-annotation tool.
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 the action and resource front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though it could have used one clause to route against list_workflows.
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 output schema, the description usefully names what is returned (nodes and connections). However, for a zero-annotation tool it omits error behavior and sibling differentiation, so it is only minimally complete.
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?
There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing guidance for workflowId beyond what the schema already states.
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 ('a specific workflow') plus the scope of returned content (nodes and connections). An agent can distinguish this from list_workflows by the singular 'specific workflow' phrasing, but the description never names that sibling explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied: 'a specific workflow' hints at fetching one by ID versus listing many, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no pointer to list_workflows, and no prerequisites or exclusions given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.