Skip to main content
Glama

update-project

Modify a project's name in n8n using the MCP server. Requires n8n Enterprise license with project management features enabled.

Instructions

Update a project's name. NOTE: Requires n8n Enterprise license with project management features enabled. IMPORTANT: Arguments must be provided as compact, single-line JSON without whitespace or newlines.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
clientIdYes
projectIdYes
nameYes

Implementation Reference

  • Handler function in the CallToolRequestSchema that executes the update-project tool by calling N8nClient.updateProject
    case "update-project": {
      const { clientId, projectId, name } = args as { clientId: string; projectId: string; name: string };
      const client = clients.get(clientId);
      if (!client) {
        return {
          content: [{
            type: "text",
            text: "Client not initialized. Please run init-n8n first.",
          }],
          isError: true
        };
      }
    
      try {
        await client.updateProject(projectId, name);
        return {
          content: [{
            type: "text",
            text: `Successfully updated project ${projectId} with new name: ${name}`,
          }]
        };
      } catch (error) {
        return {
          content: [{
            type: "text",
            text: error instanceof Error ? error.message : "Unknown error occurred",
          }],
          isError: true
        };
      }
    }
  • Input schema definition for the update-project tool in the tools list returned by ListToolsRequestSchema
      name: "update-project",
      description: "Update a project's name. NOTE: Requires n8n Enterprise license with project management features enabled. IMPORTANT: Arguments must be provided as compact, single-line JSON without whitespace or newlines.",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          clientId: { type: "string" },
          projectId: { type: "string" },
          name: { type: "string" }
        },
        required: ["clientId", "projectId", "name"]
      }
    },
  • src/index.ts:543-554 (registration)
    Registration of the update-project tool within the ListToolsRequestSchema handler's tools array
      name: "update-project",
      description: "Update a project's name. NOTE: Requires n8n Enterprise license with project management features enabled. IMPORTANT: Arguments must be provided as compact, single-line JSON without whitespace or newlines.",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          clientId: { type: "string" },
          projectId: { type: "string" },
          name: { type: "string" }
        },
        required: ["clientId", "projectId", "name"]
      }
    },
  • N8nClient helper method that performs the actual API call to update the project name via PUT request to /projects/{projectId}
    async updateProject(projectId: string, name: string): Promise<void> {
      return this.makeRequest<void>(`/projects/${projectId}`, {
        method: 'PUT',
        body: JSON.stringify({ name }),
      });
    }

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions licensing requirements and input format constraints ('Arguments must be provided as compact, single-line JSON'), which adds some context. However, it lacks details on permissions, side effects, error handling, or response format, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that directly address purpose, requirements, and input format. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more structured by separating the NOTE and IMPORTANT points into distinct lines for clarity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation with 3 parameters), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers licensing and input format but misses critical details like parameter meanings, behavioral traits, and expected outcomes, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the three parameters (clientId, name, projectId) are documented in the schema. The description only mentions 'name' as the field being updated and doesn't explain what clientId or projectId represent or how they are used, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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: 'Update a project's name.' It specifies the verb ('Update') and resource ('project's name'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update-workflow' or 'update-tag', 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.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: 'Requires n8n Enterprise license with project management features enabled.' This indicates prerequisites, but it doesn't specify when to use this tool over alternatives like 'create-project' or 'delete-project', or when not to use it, which prevents a score of 5.

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