Server has 13 tools with complete input schemas and descriptions. Naming follows verb_noun convention (n8n_get_workflow, n8n_list_workflows, etc.). Descriptions are present and adequate (50-150 chars typical), explaining what each tool does. However, output schemas are not documented in the source code, LLMs cannot see what fields to expect from responses. Parameter descriptions are minimal (e.g., 'The n8n workflow ID to retrieve' lacks format/constraint details). Write tools require approval flags and write_token parameters, showing security awareness, but error handling guidance is absent. No pagination support visible for list operations. Tool composition is reasonable (separate read/write/delete tools), but some tools like n8n_plan_workflow_update and n8n_apply_workflow_update could benefit from clearer sequencing documentation.

• Document output schemas for all tools. Include field names, types, and descriptions. Example: n8n_get_workflow should document {workflow_id: string, name: string, nodes: array, connections: object, ...}.
• Add pagination to list tools: n8n_list_workflows(limit=20, offset=0) and return {workflows: [...], total: N, has_more: bool}. Document the default limit (e.g., 20) in the description.
• Enhance parameter descriptions with format/constraint details. E.g., 'workflow_id (string, UUID format, required)' or 'definition (object, must contain nodes array and connections object)'.
• Add error handling guidance to write tool descriptions. E.g., 'If write_token is invalid, you will receive a 401 error. Verify MCP_WRITE_AUTH_TOKEN is set correctly.' or 'If workflow not found, try n8n_list_workflows() to find the correct ID.'
• Document the plan→apply workflow explicitly. Update n8n_plan_workflow_update description to say 'Returns a plan_id. Pass this to n8n_apply_workflow_update to execute the change.' and vice versa.