n8n-free-mcp

Update workflow

update_workflow

Replace an existing n8n workflow by providing its full JSON. Read-only fields are automatically stripped, keeping only the editable parts.

Instructions

Replace an existing workflow (PUT). Pass the full workflow JSON (typically the result of get_workflow with modifications); read-only fields (id, active, tags, dates) are stripped automatically.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "workflow": "<workflow>"
    },
    "name": "update_workflow"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	ID of the workflow to update
`workflow`	Yes	Full workflow JSON (name, nodes, connections, settings)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions that read-only fields are stripped automatically, but lacks details on idempotency, validation, auth requirements, or side effects such as whether execution history is affected.

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?

Two sentences with no redundancy. Front-loaded with the HTTP method and purpose, every word adds value.

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

Completeness3/5

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

No output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it could mention the response format or indicate that the update takes effect immediately. Overall adequate but not enriched.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptive parameter names. The description adds meaningful context: 'full workflow JSON (typically the result of get_workflow with modifications)' and clarifies read-only field behavior, which goes beyond the schema.

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 'Replace an existing workflow (PUT)' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from create_workflow and get_workflow by specifying the full replacement pattern.

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?

Describes typical usage: pass full workflow JSON from get_workflow with modifications. Does not explicitly list when not to use or alternatives, but the sibling tool set implies create_workflow for new workflows.

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

Deploy Server