Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
n8n MCP Server

n8n MCP Server

by verzth
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Get n8n Workflow

n8n_get_workflow
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve full workflow details by ID, including nodes and connections, with output as JSON or markdown.

Instructions

Retrieve full details of a specific workflow by ID, including its nodes and connections.

Args:

  • id (string): Workflow ID

  • response_format ('markdown' | 'json'): Output format (default 'json' for full detail)

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>"
    },
    "name": "n8n_get_workflow"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesWorkflow ID
response_formatNoOutput formatjson

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context about the return content (nodes, connections) and the response_format behavior ('default json for full detail'), which goes beyond what annotations provide.

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?

The description is two concise sentences plus a clear argument list. It is front-loaded with the main action and contains no filler, earning its place.

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 get-by-ID tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description adequately explains the purpose and return content (nodes, connections). The lack of an output schema is compensated with 'full details', though error behavior is not mentioned.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the parameter information and adds a slight nuance about 'full detail' for JSON, but does not significantly enrich the schema's already-present descriptions.

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 states 'Retrieve full details of a specific workflow by ID' with a clear verb and resource, and mentions 'including its nodes and connections', which distinguishes it from listing tools and other get tools.

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?

The description implies use when you have a specific workflow ID and need full details, which is clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as n8n_list_workflows for finding IDs or other tools, so no exclusions are stated.

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