Retrieve the parameter schema for a specified n8n node type to see which inputs and options it accepts. Use this to configure node parameters correctly.
Get the parameter schema for a specific n8n node type. Use this to understand what inputs/options a node accepts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nodeName | Yes | The internal name of the node (e.g., "n8n-nodes-base.httpRequest", "n8n-nodes-base.googleSheets") |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. The verb 'Get' clearly implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state safety, error behavior, or what the returned schema looks like. It is adequate for a simple retrieval but lacks deeper transparency.
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 short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the usage guidance follows immediately. Every word 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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential information an agent needs to decide to call it and to provide the parameter. It could mention the return format or the fact that it returns a JSON schema, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.
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?
The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter nodeName, including type and examples. The description adds minimal value beyond confirming that the parameter identifies a node type; it does not introduce new meaning not already in 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?
The description states a clear verb (get), a specific resource (parameter schema for an n8n node type), and the intent (understand inputs/options). It is distinct from siblings like get_credential_schema by focusing on 'node type', though it does not explicitly name 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?
The phrase 'Use this to understand what inputs/options a node accepts' gives a clear context for when to invoke the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or contrast it with related tools such as get_credential_schema or list_node_types.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.