explain_ruleExplains why an n8n lint rule exists, how to fix its finding, and which fields it uses that n8n docs do not confirm.
Explain why a rule exists and how to fix a finding. Also lists fields the rule relies on that the n8n docs do not confirm.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ruleId | Yes | Rule id, for example "R002" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 the content of the response (rationale, fix guidance, and docs-unconfirmed field dependencies), but says nothing about side effects, whether it is read-only, or what happens for an unknown ruleId.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and with no filler. The trailing clause about docs-unconfirmed fields is slightly cryptic but still informative rather than padding.
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 simple one-parameter lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers what the tool returns. It leaves gaps only around error behavior for invalid rule ids and explicit relationship to the linting workflow.
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?
The single ruleId parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the 'R002' format example, so the description adds no parameter-level information. Baseline 3 applies when schema coverage is 100%.
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 (explain a lint rule) and adds the useful detail that it covers both rule rationale and remediation of a finding. It is distinguishable from list_rules and lint_workflow by function, though it never names those siblings explicitly.
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?
The phrase 'how to fix a finding' implies the natural trigger point (after lint_workflow surfaces a finding), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not-to-use, and no routing to or from the sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.