Creates a new inactive n8n workflow and backs it up locally as a source export. Use it to add workflows without activating them, keeping rollback copies on hand.
Creates a new inactive workflow and exports a local source backup
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | No | ||
| workflow | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two valuable, non-obvious behaviors: the workflow is created inactive, and a local source backup is exported as a side effect. It omits permissions needed, what the 'confirm' flag does, and whether the backup is overwritten or appended.
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?
A single tight sentence with the core action front-loaded and the side effect trailing. No waste, though there is room to add the missing parameter guidance without bloat.
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?
With a required nested object at 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain the workflow payload shape and the confirm flag. It leaves an agent unable to construct a correct call from the definition alone.
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% for two parameters, one of which is a required nested object ('workflow'). The description says nothing about the structure of that object or the meaning of 'confirm', so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Creates a new inactive workflow') and adds a distinguishing detail (inactive) that separates it from set_workflow_active. However it does not differentiate from the close sibling duplicate_workflow, which an agent could easily confuse it with.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus duplicate_workflow, update_workflow_json, or rollback_workflow, and no mention of prerequisites. The agent is left to infer that 'create' means a brand-new workflow rather than a copy of an existing one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.