Create a new n8n workflow by specifying its name and optionally defining nodes, connections, settings, and activation status.
Create a new workflow
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Name of the workflow | |
| nodes | No | Array of node objects | |
| active | No | Whether active | |
| settings | No | Workflow settings | |
| connections | No | Object defining connections |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it only says 'Create a new workflow.' It fails to disclose what happens on success (returned ID or object?), the default active state, whether duplicate names are rejected, whether validation occurs at creation time, or any side effects. The basic create/mutate nature is implied, but nothing beyond that.
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 four words with the action front-loaded and zero wasted words. However, its brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient richness — for a tool creating a complex workflow object with nested nodes, connections, and settings, it provides no structural information an agent could act on.
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 5 parameters including nested objects, no annotations, no output schema, and a large sibling family covering validation, import, and backup flows, a one-clause description is inadequate. An agent cannot determine the return value, whether name-only is truly sufficient to create a workflow, the default 'active' state, or how this differs from import_template.
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 even though the description itself adds no parameter-level detail. The schema's own parameter descriptions are thin (e.g., 'Whether active' with no default; 'Array of node objects' without node structure), but the description does not compensate for or expand on any of that.
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 'Create a new workflow' states a verb and resource, and the 'create' verb minimally distinguishes it from siblings like update_workflow and delete_workflow. However, it is nearly a verbatim restatement of the tool name itself, adding almost no new information beyond the name already conveys.
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 create_workflow versus its many overlapping siblings such as import_template, validate_workflow_structure, or update_workflow. No exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions are mentioned, so the agent receives zero routing information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.