n8n MCP Server

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 states this is a retrieval operation, implying it's likely read-only, but doesn't confirm safety aspects like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens if the ID is invalid. The description is minimal and misses key behavioral details.

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 with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 the tool has 2 required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or provide enough context for safe and effective use, especially for a retrieval operation in a system with multiple tag-related tools.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions retrieving by 'ID', which hints at the 'id' parameter, but doesn't explain the 'clientId' parameter at all. This leaves half of the required parameters without semantic context, failing to adequately compensate for the schema gap.

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 verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('a specific tag'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'list-tags', which would retrieve multiple tags rather than a specific one by ID.

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 like 'list-tags' or other tag-related tools (e.g., 'create-tag', 'update-tag', 'delete-tag'). It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a valid tag ID, or exclusions.

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