Retrieve and filter workflow execution records from your n8n automation instance to monitor performance and troubleshoot issues.
Retrieve all executions from your instance with optional filtering.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| clientId | Yes | ||
| includeData | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| workflowId | No | ||
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it 'retrieves' executions without disclosing behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, permissions needed, or what 'includeData' entails. It lacks details on response format or any side effects, leaving significant gaps for a tool with 5 parameters.
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 no wasted words, front-loading the core action and key feature (filtering). Every part earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or parameter interactions, leaving too much undefined for effective agent use despite the concise structure.
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 0%, so the description must compensate but only vaguely mentions 'optional filtering' without explaining parameters like 'clientId', 'includeData', 'limit', 'status', or 'workflowId'. It adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, failing to clarify parameter purposes or usage.
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 'executions' with scope 'from your instance', making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get-execution' by specifying 'all executions' with filtering, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other list tools like 'list-projects'.
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 mentions 'optional filtering' but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-execution' for single executions or other list tools. There are no explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.