n8n-free-mcp

List workflows

list_workflows

Retrieve workflows from your n8n instance with support for filtering by name, tags, or active state, and cursor-based pagination.

Instructions

List workflows on the n8n instance. Returns id, name, active state, tags and dates. Supports cursor pagination.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_workflows"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	Filter by exact name
`tags`	No	Filter by tags, comma-separated
`limit`	No	Max results (default 100)
`active`	No	Filter by active/inactive workflows
`cursor`	No	Pagination cursor (nextCursor from a previous response)
`excludePinnedData`	No	Exclude pinData for lighter responses (default true)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions cursor pagination, which is helpful, but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, idempotent, or safe. Additional details like response size limits or rate limiting would improve transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then adding key details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or fluff.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (list operation, no required params, no output schema), the description adequately conveys what the tool does and what it returns. It covers pagination and fields, though it could mention the HTTP method or more about the response structure.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema: it confirms that cursor is for pagination (schema already indicates that). No parameter examples or additional usage context are provided.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'workflows', and specifies the returned fields (id, name, active state, tags, dates) and pagination support. It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like create_workflow or list_executions.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_executions, get_workflow). There is no mention of prerequisites, optimal use cases, or conditions under which this tool is appropriate.

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

Deploy Server