Loading ToolBench
Model Context Protocol (MCP) server for n8n workflow automation
Server has 11 tools with basic schemas and descriptions, but significant gaps limit production readiness. All tools have descriptions (10-50 chars, below the 50-200 char baseline for LLM optimization), and input schemas are present but minimal. Parameters lack detailed constraints, enums, and format guidance. No output schemas documented. Error handling is absent, tools return raw API responses without recovery guidance. Destructive operations (delete_workflow, delete_execution) lack confirmation patterns. No tool annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint) despite clear risk levels. Composition is reasonable (single responsibility per tool), but parameter naming inconsistencies (webhookId vs id) and missing human-friendly identifiers reduce usability.
Activate a workflow
Create a new workflow
Deactivate a workflow
Delete an execution
Delete a workflow
Get a specific execution by ID
Get a specific workflow by ID
Descriptions are 10-50 characters, well below the 50-200 char baseline for LLM optimization. Examples: 'List all workflows from n8n' (28 chars), 'Get a specific workflow by ID' (29 chars). LLMs cannot infer when to use these tools or what distinguishes them from similar operations.
No output schemas documented. Callers cannot predict response structure, forcing LLMs to guess at field names and types. This breaks tool chaining, if get_workflow returns workflow_id but create_workflow expects id, the agent fails.
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-23 | F | 46 | 2026-07-28+ | v2 |
List all workflow executions
List all workflows from n8n
Run a webhook
Update an existing workflow
Destructive operations (delete_workflow, delete_execution) lack confirmation or dry-run patterns. No error guidance. Agents can irreversibly delete workflows without safeguards or recovery instructions.
Parameter descriptions are missing or trivial. Example: 'nodes' param in create_workflow has description 'Workflow nodes', does not explain structure, required fields, or format. LLMs cannot construct valid payloads.
No tool annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint) despite clear risk levels. Clients cannot distinguish safe reads from destructive writes, limiting agent safety and audit capabilities.