List all n8n workflows on a server to see names, IDs, active status, and node counts. Get a quick overview to inspect and manage your automation workflows.
List all workflows on an n8n server. Returns workflow names, IDs, active status, and node counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max number of workflows to return (integer 1-1000) | |
| server_name | No | Server name from config. Uses default if omitted. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.17Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionPrevious value: -"Max number of workflows to return"New value: +"Max number of workflows to return (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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does reveal the returned fields, but it claims to list 'all' workflows while the input schema caps results at 1000 with a default of 100, and no pagination behavior is mentioned. This makes the description misleading about the actual tool behavior.
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 two concise sentences with the action front-loaded and the return payload summarized immediately. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary boilerplate.
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 read-only list tool, the essential purpose and return fields are present, and the schema covers both parameters. However, the 'all' claim conflicts with the limit parameter, and the absence of an output schema or pagination details leaves a material gap for agents that need a truly complete workflow set.
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 both `limit` and `server_name` are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no extra semantic detail about these parameters, which matches the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('workflows') with a clear scope ('on an n8n server'), and lists the key returned fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like n8n_get_workflow or n8n_list_executions, though the word 'all' is slightly overstated given the limit parameter.
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 implies this tool is for enumerating workflows, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like n8n_get_workflow, n8n_list_executions, or n8n_export_workflow. No when/when-not guidance or exclusions are provided, so the agent must infer usage from the sibling tool names and context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.