Skip to main content
Glama
gcorroto

MCP N8N Webhook Server

by gcorroto

n8n_health_check

Verify connectivity and operational status of the n8n webhook server to ensure reliable data transmission for storage, indexing, and retrieval tasks.

Instructions

Verificar la conectividad y estado del webhook de n8n

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • index.ts:53-72 (registration)
    Registration of the MCP tool 'n8n_health_check' with empty input schema (zod object), description, and an inline handler function that calls the healthCheckWebhook helper and formats the response as MCP content.
    server.tool(
      "n8n_health_check",
      "Verificar la conectividad y estado del webhook de n8n",
      {},
      async () => {
        console.error(`🔍 Verificando estado del webhook n8n...`);
        
        const result = await webhookTools.healthCheckWebhook();
    
        const statusIcon = result.success ? '✅' : '❌';
        const content = `${statusIcon} **Estado del Webhook N8N**\n\n**Estado:** ${result.success ? 'DISPONIBLE' : 'NO DISPONIBLE'}\n**Mensaje:** ${result.message}\n**Verificado:** ${result.timestamp}`;
    
        return {
          content: [{ 
            type: "text", 
            text: content
          }],
        };
      }
    );
  • Core implementation of the health check logic: sends a test POST request to the n8n webhook URL with a dummy payload, checks HTTP response, and returns success/failure status via WebhookResponse type.
    export async function healthCheckWebhook(): Promise<WebhookResponse> {
      try {
        console.error(`🔍 Verificando conectividad del webhook...`);
        
        // Intento básico de conectividad (sin enviar datos reales)
        const testPayload = {
          metadata: {
            timestamp: generateTimestamp(),
            source: 'health_check',
            version: '1.0'
          },
          project: {
            id: 'health_check',
            name: 'Health Check'
          },
          content: {
            title: 'Verificación de conectividad',
            text: 'Este es un mensaje de prueba para verificar la conectividad'
          }
        };
        
        const response = await fetch(`${WEBHOOK_URL}/${WEBHOOK_ID}`, {
          method: 'POST',
          headers: {
            'Content-Type': 'application/json',
            'Authorization-n8n-api-key': API_KEY,
            'User-Agent': 'MCP-N8N-Webhook/1.0'
          },
          body: JSON.stringify(testPayload)
        });
        
        if (!response.ok) {
          return {
            success: false,
            message: `Webhook no disponible: HTTP ${response.status}`,
            timestamp: generateTimestamp()
          };
        }
        
        return {
          success: true,
          message: 'Webhook disponible y funcionando correctamente',
          timestamp: generateTimestamp()
        };
        
      } catch (error) {
        return {
          success: false,
          message: `Error de conectividad: ${(error as Error).message}`,
          timestamp: generateTimestamp()
        };
      }
    }
Behavior2/5

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.

Conciseness5/5

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.

Completeness3/5

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.

Parameters4/5

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.

Purpose4/5

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.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/gcorroto/mcp-n8n-webhook'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server