n8n-guard

Instance info

instance_info

Shows reachability, configuration, and workflow inventory of the monitored n8n instance. Use it first to see which health checks are configured and which are not.

Instructions

Reachability, configuration and workflow inventory of the monitored n8n instance. Start here: it shows which checks are configured and which are not.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "instance_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. The wording ("info", "inventory", "reachability") implies a read-only probe, but it never states that there are no side effects, that the call reaches a remote instance and can fail on unreachability, or what latency/auth constraints apply. It conveys the domain context but leaves the safety and failure profile implicit.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the content inventory first and the usage directive second. Every clause earns its place and nothing is buried.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool this is close to sufficient: the agent knows what it returns at a category level and that it should be called first. It could go one step further by indicating roughly what "configuration" covers or that the response is a snapshot of instance state, but no critical calling information is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing the description could add. Schema coverage is 100% with an empty properties object, so no gap exists to compensate for.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a concrete resource and enumerates its content: reachability, configuration, and workflow inventory of the monitored n8n instance. That distinguishes it from the sibling check tools (db_health, git_drift, retention_report, stuck_executions), which each appear to cover a single concern, though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"Start here" is an explicit routing instruction, and the follow-up clause explains why: it reveals which checks are configured and which are not, implying the agent should call it before choosing among the sibling check tools. It stops short of naming an alternative or stating when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server