List recent n8n workflow executions to check their status. Filter by status, workflow ID, or limit to troubleshoot failed runs.
List recent workflow executions to check status
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| workflowId | No | Filter by workflow ID | |
| includeData | No | Include execution data |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'recent' without explaining ordering, time range, default limit behavior, or whether execution data is included by default, leaving important behavioral expectations unstated.
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 a single concise sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of behavioral and parameter detail.
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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse to fully equip an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It omits filter semantics, default values, output shape, and sorting/recency behavior, leaving significant gaps.
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 only 50%, and the description does not clarify the undocumented parameters 'limit' and 'status'. It adds no meaning beyond the schema for workflowId and includeData, so it fails to compensate for the parameters that lack descriptions.
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 specific verb ('List') and resource ('workflow executions') with the intended purpose of checking status. It is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like get_execution (single execution) and list_workflows (different resource), though it does not explicitly name those 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 'to check status' implies the intended use case, which helps an agent decide when to call this tool. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it, such as when a single execution's full details are needed via get_execution.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.