Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
n8n MCP Server

n8n MCP Server

by verzth
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Unarchive n8n Workflow

n8n_unarchive_workflow
Idempotent

Restore an archived n8n workflow to normal state with its workflow ID. Unarchive to reactivate automation and resume operations.

Instructions

Restore an archived workflow back to normal state.

Args:

  • id (string): Workflow ID to unarchive

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_unarchive_workflow"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesWorkflow ID to unarchive

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, providing a clear safety profile. The description adds only the basic behavior of restoring, without detailing edge cases or prerequisites, so it meets the baseline but does not add substantial context.

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 a single sentence plus an args list, with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter tool and does not repeat schema information unnecessarily.

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 tool with one clearly defined parameter and annotations covering idempotency and destructiveness, the description is mostly complete. It lacks any note on error behavior or prerequisites, but these are not critical for the typical use case.

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 coverage is 100% with the id parameter description matching the tool description exactly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Restore' and clearly identifies the resource as 'an archived workflow', stating the outcome ('back to normal state'). This distinguishes it from siblings like n8n_archive_workflow, which performs the opposite action.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when an archived workflow needs to be restored. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but the sibling set includes n8n_archive_workflow, making the purpose and appropriate usage obvious.

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