List recent workflow executions to monitor status, timing, and errors. Filter by workflow, status, or limit to troubleshoot automation issues.
List recent workflow executions on an n8n server. Shows status, timing, and errors.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (integer 1-1000) | |
| status | No | Filter by status | |
| server_name | No | Server name. Uses default if omitted. | |
| workflow_id | No | Filter by workflow ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.17Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionPrevious value: -"Max results"New value: +"Max results (integer 1-1000)"Input schema / properties / limit / maximumAdded value: +1000Input schema / properties / limit / minimumAdded value: +1Input schema / properties / limit / typePrevious value: -"number"New value: +"integer"v0.1.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool returns status, timing, and error information, and the verb 'List' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not mention whether this is purely read-only, whether server_name resolution has side effects, or how it handles missing/invalid filters.
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 one tight, front-loaded sentence that states the core action and the key output dimensions. Every word earns its place with no filler or redundancy.
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 simple listing tool with four optional parameters fully described in the schema, the description provides enough context about the returned data (status, timing, errors). It could mention that results are ordered by recency or that the limit default applies, but those details are inferable from the description and schema.
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 every parameter already has a clear meaning in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 names a specific verb ('List'), resource ('workflow executions'), and scope ('on an n8n server'). It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like n8n_list_workflows, which list workflow definitions rather than execution history.
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 makes the use case clear: retrieving recent execution records, including their status, timing, and errors. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the resource distinction from siblings is evident enough, and no conflicting alternative is obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.