Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
n8n MCP Server

n8n MCP Server

by verzth
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Create n8n Tag

n8n_create_tag

Create a unique tag for annotating workflows, enabling easy grouping and filtering by category or status.

Instructions

Create a new annotation tag for organizing workflows.

Args:

  • name (string): Tag name (must be unique)

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "n8n_create_tag"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesTag name (must be unique)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations: it notes the tag name must be unique, which implies a duplicate will fail. However, this constraint is already present in the schema, and no additional behaviors (e.g., error handling, auth requirements, side effects) are disclosed. Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive, so the description does not contradict them.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is succinct and front-loaded with the main action. It includes an Args list, which is somewhat redundant with the schema but still clear and compact. No wasted words, though the Args section adds little value given the schema.

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?

For a simple create operation with one parameter, no output schema, and adequate annotations, the description is mostly complete. It explains the purpose and the uniqueness constraint. It could optionally mention what happens on duplicate, but that is not essential for tool selection.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'name' documented as 'Tag name (must be unique)'. The description repeats this in its Args list without adding any new meaning beyond the schema, so it earns the baseline score.

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 tool creates a new annotation tag for organizing workflows, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like n8n_update_tag and n8n_delete_tag by focusing on creation.

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 such as n8n_list_tags, n8n_update_tag, or n8n_delete_tag. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to other tag-related operations.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools