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 mention permissions, rate limits, pagination (despite a 'limit' parameter), or what 'all tags' entails (e.g., scope, ordering). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 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. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to scan and understand 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 parameters (one required) with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter meanings, behavioral traits like pagination, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient context for effective use.

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 adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'clientId' refers to (e.g., authentication, instance identifier) or how 'limit' affects retrieval (e.g., pagination, max results). This fails to address the undocumented parameters.

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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('all tags'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'get-tag' (which presumably retrieves a single tag), leaving some ambiguity about when to use one versus the other.

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 'get-tag' or other list operations. It mentions 'from your instance' but doesn't specify context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage scenarios.

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