Retrieve backup records created by n8n workflow administration, optionally filtered by workflow ID and limited in count, to review prior workflow states.
Lists backup records made by this admin tool
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| workflow_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It hints that only backups created by this admin tool are returned, but discloses nothing about pagination, ordering, default result size, or whether limit truncates results.
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 short sentence with no filler and the resource front-loaded after the verb. Efficient, though the trailing qualifier is mildly redundant.
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?
For a list tool with two undocumented filter/limit parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain what the parameters do and what the records contain. It leaves too much for the agent to guess.
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 both parameters, and the description adds no meaning for 'limit' or 'workflow_id'. It neither states that limit caps results nor that workflow_id filters backups to a single workflow, leaving both params undocumented end to end.
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 ('Lists') and resource ('backup records') with a scope qualifier ('made by this admin tool'). It is unambiguous, though the qualifier is slightly redundant and there is no sibling tool competing for the backup-listing function to differentiate from.
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 tool versus any alternative, no preconditions, and no mention of how it relates to the workflow-oriented siblings. The agent must infer usage entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.