Validate an n8n workflow by its ID to identify issues in nodes, connections, and expressions. Returns errors, warnings, and suggestions to fix problems before execution.
Validate workflow by ID. Checks nodes, connections, expressions. Returns errors/warnings/suggestions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Workflow ID to validate | |
| options | No | Validation options |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.65.2v2.65.1v2.56.0v2.55.0v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide read-only, open-world, and idempotent hints. Description adds that it returns errors/warnings/suggestions but does not elaborate on response structure or edge cases.
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 concise sentences conveying core purpose and output. No redundant information, well front-loaded.
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?
No output schema, so description should detail return format. Lacks explanation of validation profiles, which are documented only via enum values. Does not address potential confusion with sibling 'validate_workflow'.
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 coverage is 100% with detailed property descriptions. Description restates the parameters' purpose without adding new meaning or examples.
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?
Description clearly states it validates a workflow by ID, checking nodes, connections, expressions, and returning results. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling 'validate_workflow', which may cause confusion.
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 use this tool versus alternatives like n8n_audit_instance or n8n_health_check. Does not specify prerequisites or when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.