n8n_list_catalog

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond these: it reads the Public API first and falls back to n8n's MCP server only when team projects are not licensed and N8N_MCP_ACCESS_TOKEN is set. This documents an important environment-dependent behavior.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The main action and scope are front-loaded, and the second sentence provides the fallback behavior without unnecessary wording. Every sentence earns 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 a read-only list tool with three simple parameters, annotations covering safety, and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers what is listed, why projects matter, and the auth/fallback path an agent needs to anticipate. An agent can correctly select and invoke this tool with the information provided.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It does add useful semantics for 'kind' by explaining that projects include the personal project marker and are needed as projectId for agents/data tables. The 'query' parameter is already described in the schema, and 'limit' has clear bounds. This is partial but adequate compensation.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('instance-level catalog entries'), then enumerates exactly what is returned: projects or tags. It also clarifies why projects are useful ('needed as projectId for agents and data tables'), distinguishing this from siblings like n8n_list_workflows or n8n_manage_datatable.

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?

The description gives clear context: use this to obtain project IDs or tags at the instance level. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, but the 'instance-level' scope and projectId use case provide enough guidance for an agent to select it appropriately.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.