Manages configuration through environment variables, allowing customization of webhook URLs, API keys, index names, and table categories for the n8n integration.
Enables storing structured data through n8n webhooks for saving conversations, project documentation, and development logs, with support for custom indexing and categorization to facilitate later retrieval and searching.
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@MCP N8N Webhook Server save this conversation about implementing vector storage to the AI_ML project"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
Servidor MCP (Model Context Protocol) para enviar datos a un webhook de n8n para almacenamiento e indexación.
Este servidor MCP permite a los asistentes de IA guardar información estructurada en n8n a través de webhooks. Es ideal para:
Guardar conversaciones y logs de desarrollo
Almacenar documentación de proyectos
Indexar información para búsquedas posteriores
Crear embeddings de contenido para RAG
Related MCP server: MCP Server for n8n Integration
npm install
npm run buildCrea un archivo .env basado en config.example.env:
cp config.example.env .envConfigura las variables de entorno:
N8N_WEBHOOK_URL: URL base del webhook de n8n
N8N_WEBHOOK_ID: ID único del webhook
N8N_API_KEY: Clave de API para autenticación
N8N_INDEX_NAME: Nombre del índice por defecto (opcional, default: PROJECT_CONVERSATIONS)
N8N_TABLE_CATEGORY: Categoría de tabla por defecto (opcional, default: DEVELOPMENT_LOGS)
npm run devnpm run inspectornpm startn8n_save_dataGuarda información estructurada en el webhook de n8n.
Parámetros:
projectName (requerido): Nombre del proyecto
projectCategory (requerido): Categoría del proyecto
contentType (requerido): Tipo de contenido
title (requerido): Título del contenido
description (requerido): Descripción del contenido
text (requerido): Texto completo
tags (requerido): Array de etiquetas
projectId (opcional): ID del proyecto
projectStatus (opcional): Estado del proyecto
language (opcional): Idioma del contenido
indexName (opcional): Nombre del índice
tableCategory (opcional): Categoría de tabla
source (opcional): Fuente de los datos
n8n_health_checkVerifica la conectividad con el webhook de n8n.
El servidor envía datos en el siguiente formato:
{
"metadata": {
"timestamp": "2025-07-02T10:30:00Z",
"source": "mcp_assistant",
"version": "1.0"
},
"project": {
"id": "proj_001",
"name": "Sistema de Embeddings",
"category": "AI_ML",
"status": "ACTIVE"
},
"content": {
"type": "CONVERSATION",
"title": "Implementación de almacenamiento vectorial",
"description": "Discusión sobre la arquitectura...",
"text": "Se está implementando un sistema...",
"tags": ["embeddings", "vectorial", "conversaciones"],
"language": "es"
},
"indexing": {
"index_name": "PROJECT_CONVERSATIONS",
"table_category": "DEVELOPMENT_LOGS"
}
}MIT
Verificar la conectividad y estado del webhook de n8n
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool verifies connectivity and status, but doesn't describe what 'status' includes, whether it performs active testing or passive checking, what happens on failure, or what permissions are required. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with external systems.
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, efficient sentence in Spanish that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a simple health check tool with no parameters.
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 health check tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides the core purpose but lacks important context about what constitutes 'status', what format the results take, and how to interpret the verification outcome. Without annotations or output schema, more behavioral details would be helpful.
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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of parameters. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose. This meets the baseline expectation for parameterless tools.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Verificar la conectividad y estado del webhook de n8n' (Verify connectivity and status of the n8n webhook), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling tool 'n8n_save_data', which appears to be a data-saving operation rather than a health check.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it implies usage for checking webhook status, there's no mention of prerequisites, frequency, or comparison with the sibling tool 'n8n_save_data'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Guardar información en n8n a través de webhook para indexación y almacenamiento
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectName | Yes | Nombre del proyecto | |
| title | Yes | Título del contenido | |
| text | Yes | Texto completo del contenido a guardar |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the mechanism ('a través de webhook' - via webhook) which is useful context, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this is a read or write operation (though 'Guardar' implies write), what permissions are needed, whether data is persisted permanently, what happens on failure, or any rate limits. For a data storage tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
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, efficient sentence in Spanish that communicates the core functionality. It's appropriately sized for a tool with 3 parameters and no complex behavior described. While concise, it could be more front-loaded with critical information about the tool's nature (write operation, webhook-based).
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?
Given this is a data storage tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what happens after data is saved (success/failure responses, return values), doesn't mention authentication requirements, and provides no information about data persistence or retrieval. For a tool that presumably writes data to n8n, this leaves too many unanswered questions about how to use it effectively.
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 description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. It doesn't explain relationships between parameters, provide examples, or add context about how parameters are used together. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.
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 clearly states the action ('Guardar información' - Save information) and target ('en n8n a través de webhook' - in n8n via webhook), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It also mentions the purpose ('para indexación y almacenamiento' - for indexing and storage), which gives additional context about why this tool exists. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling tool (n8n_health_check), which is why it doesn't reach a score of 5.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. While it mentions the purpose ('para indexación y almacenamiento'), it doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or limitations. There's no comparison with the sibling tool (n8n_health_check), leaving the agent to guess when each is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
n8n_health_checkn8n_save_dataScored across 2 tools
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one checks connectivity/status, while the other saves data. There is no overlap or ambiguity between these functions, making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool.
Both tools follow a consistent 'n8n_verb_noun' pattern (n8n_health_check, n8n_save_data). This naming convention is uniform and predictable, enhancing readability and usability.
With only two tools, the server feels thin for a webhook server that might require more operations like listing, updating, or deleting data. This limited scope could hinder agent workflows, indicating an under-provisioned tool surface.
The server lacks essential CRUD operations for a webhook domain; it only offers health checks and data saving. Missing tools for retrieving, updating, or managing webhook data create significant gaps that will likely cause agent failures in broader tasks.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
A comprehensive Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that enables AI assistants to interact with yo…
A Model Context Protocol server for Wix AI tools
Model Context Protocol server for the Apideck Unified API. Connect any MCP-compatible agent framework to 100+ accounting systems, HRIS platforms, file storage providers, and more through one integration. More information https://www.apideck.com/mcp-server
Persistent memory for AI assistants. Save once; recall from Claude, ChatGPT, or any MCP client.
