mirror of
https://github.com/czlonkowski/n8n-mcp.git
synced 2026-02-06 05:23:08 +00:00
2305aaab9e
Complete implementation of Phase 1 foundation for n8n API integration tests. Establishes core utilities, fixtures, and infrastructure for testing all 17 n8n API handlers against real n8n instance. Changes: - Add integration test environment configuration to .env.example - Create comprehensive test utilities infrastructure: * credentials.ts: Environment-aware credential management (local .env vs CI secrets) * n8n-client.ts: Singleton API client wrapper with health checks * test-context.ts: Resource tracking and automatic cleanup * cleanup-helpers.ts: Multi-level cleanup strategies (orphaned, age-based, tag-based) * fixtures.ts: 6 pre-built workflow templates (webhook, HTTP, multi-node, error handling, AI, expressions) * factories.ts: Dynamic node/workflow builders with 15+ factory functions * webhook-workflows.ts: Webhook workflow configs and setup instructions - Add npm scripts: * test:integration:n8n: Run n8n API integration tests * test:cleanup:orphans: Clean up orphaned test resources - Create cleanup script for CI/manual use Documentation: - Add comprehensive integration testing plan (550 lines) - Add Phase 1 completion summary with lessons learned Key Features: - Automatic credential detection (CI vs local) - Multi-level cleanup (test, suite, CI, orphan) - 6 workflow fixtures covering common scenarios - 15+ factory functions for dynamic test data - Support for 4 HTTP methods (GET, POST, PUT, DELETE) via pre-activated webhook workflows - TypeScript-first with full type safety - Comprehensive error handling with helpful messages Total: ~1,520 lines of production-ready code + 650 lines of documentation Ready for Phase 2: Workflow creation tests 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
226 lines
7.5 KiB
Markdown
226 lines
7.5 KiB
Markdown
# N8N-MCP Deep Dive Analysis - October 2, 2025
|
|
|
|
## Overview
|
|
|
|
This directory contains a comprehensive deep-dive analysis of n8n-mcp usage data from September 26 - October 2, 2025.
|
|
|
|
**Data Volume Analyzed:**
|
|
- 212,375 telemetry events
|
|
- 5,751 workflow creations
|
|
- 2,119 unique users
|
|
- 6 days of usage data
|
|
|
|
## Report Structure
|
|
|
|
|
|
###: `DEEP_DIVE_ANALYSIS_2025-10-02.md` (Main Report)
|
|
|
|
**Sections Covered:**
|
|
1. **Executive Summary** - Key findings and recommendations
|
|
2. **Tool Performance Analysis** - Success rates, performance metrics, critical findings
|
|
3. **Validation Catastrophe** - The node type prefix disaster analysis
|
|
4. **Usage Patterns & User Segmentation** - User distribution, daily trends
|
|
5. **Tool Sequence Analysis** - How AI agents use tools together
|
|
6. **Workflow Creation Patterns** - Complexity distribution, popular nodes
|
|
7. **Platform & Version Distribution** - OS, architecture, version adoption
|
|
8. **Error Patterns & Root Causes** - TypeErrors, validation errors, discovery failures
|
|
9. **P0-P1 Refactoring Recommendations** - Detailed implementation guides
|
|
|
|
**Sections Covered:**
|
|
- Remaining P1 and P2 recommendations
|
|
- Architectural refactoring suggestions
|
|
- Telemetry enhancements
|
|
- CHANGELOG integration
|
|
- Final recommendations summary
|
|
|
|
## Key Findings Summary
|
|
|
|
### Critical Issues (P0 - Fix Immediately)
|
|
|
|
1. **Node Type Prefix Validation Catastrophe**
|
|
- 5,000+ validation errors from single root cause
|
|
- `nodes-base.X` vs `n8n-nodes-base.X` confusion
|
|
- **Solution**: Auto-normalize prefixes (2-4 hours effort)
|
|
|
|
2. **TypeError in Node Information Tools**
|
|
- 10-18% failure rate in get_node_essentials/info
|
|
- 1,000+ failures affecting hundreds of users
|
|
- **Solution**: Complete null-safety audit (1 day effort)
|
|
|
|
3. **Task Discovery Failures**
|
|
- `get_node_for_task` failing 28% of the time
|
|
- Worst-performing tool in entire system
|
|
- **Solution**: Expand task library + fuzzy matching (3 days effort)
|
|
|
|
### Performance Metrics
|
|
|
|
**Excellent Reliability (96-100% success):**
|
|
- n8n_update_partial_workflow: 98.7%
|
|
- search_nodes: 99.8%
|
|
- n8n_create_workflow: 96.1%
|
|
- All workflow management tools: 100%
|
|
|
|
**User Distribution:**
|
|
- Power Users (12): 2,112 events/user, 33 workflows
|
|
- Heavy Users (47): 673 events/user, 18 workflows
|
|
- Regular Users (516): 199 events/user, 7 workflows (CORE AUDIENCE)
|
|
- Active Users (919): 52 events/user, 2 workflows
|
|
- Casual Users (625): 8 events/user, 1 workflow
|
|
|
|
### Usage Insights
|
|
|
|
**Most Used Tools:**
|
|
1. n8n_update_partial_workflow: 10,177 calls (iterative refinement)
|
|
2. search_nodes: 8,839 calls (node discovery)
|
|
3. n8n_create_workflow: 6,046 calls (workflow creation)
|
|
|
|
**Most Common Tool Sequences:**
|
|
1. update → update → update (549x) - Iterative refinement pattern
|
|
2. create → update (297x) - Create then refine
|
|
3. update → get_workflow (265x) - Update then verify
|
|
|
|
**Most Popular Nodes:**
|
|
1. code (53% of workflows) - AI agents love programmatic control
|
|
2. httpRequest (47%) - Integration-heavy usage
|
|
3. webhook (32%) - Event-driven automation
|
|
|
|
## SQL Analytical Views Created
|
|
|
|
15 comprehensive views were created in Supabase for ongoing analysis:
|
|
|
|
1. `vw_tool_performance` - Performance metrics per tool
|
|
2. `vw_error_analysis` - Error patterns and frequencies
|
|
3. `vw_validation_analysis` - Validation failure details
|
|
4. `vw_tool_sequences` - Tool-to-tool transition patterns
|
|
5. `vw_workflow_creation_patterns` - Workflow characteristics
|
|
6. `vw_node_usage_analysis` - Node popularity and complexity
|
|
7. `vw_node_cooccurrence` - Which nodes are used together
|
|
8. `vw_user_activity` - Per-user activity metrics
|
|
9. `vw_session_analysis` - Platform/version distribution
|
|
10. `vw_workflow_validation_failures` - Workflow validation issues
|
|
11. `vw_temporal_patterns` - Time-based usage patterns
|
|
12. `vw_tool_funnel` - User progression through tools
|
|
13. `vw_search_analysis` - Search behavior
|
|
14. `vw_tool_success_summary` - Success/failure rates
|
|
15. `vw_user_journeys` - Complete user session reconstruction
|
|
|
|
## Priority Recommendations
|
|
|
|
### Immediate Actions (This Week)
|
|
|
|
✅ **P0-R1**: Auto-normalize node type prefixes → Eliminate 4,800 errors
|
|
✅ **P0-R2**: Complete null-safety audit → Fix 10-18% TypeError failures
|
|
✅ **P0-R3**: Expand get_node_for_task library → 72% → 95% success rate
|
|
|
|
**Expected Impact**: Reduce error rate from 5-10% to <2% overall
|
|
|
|
### Next Release (2-3 Weeks)
|
|
|
|
✅ **P1-R4**: Batch workflow operations → Save 30-50% tokens
|
|
✅ **P1-R5**: Proactive node suggestions → Reduce search iterations
|
|
✅ **P1-R6**: Auto-fix suggestions in errors → Self-service recovery
|
|
|
|
**Expected Impact**: 40% faster workflow creation, better UX
|
|
|
|
### Future Roadmap (1-3 Months)
|
|
|
|
✅ **A1**: Service layer consolidation → Cleaner architecture
|
|
✅ **A2**: Repository caching → 50% faster node operations
|
|
✅ **R10**: Workflow template library from usage → 80% coverage
|
|
✅ **T1-T3**: Enhanced telemetry → Better observability
|
|
|
|
**Expected Impact**: Scalable foundation for 10x growth
|
|
|
|
## Methodology
|
|
|
|
### Data Sources
|
|
|
|
1. **Supabase Telemetry Database**
|
|
- `telemetry_events` table: 212,375 rows
|
|
- `telemetry_workflows` table: 5,751 rows
|
|
|
|
2. **Analytical Views**
|
|
- Created 15 SQL views for multi-dimensional analysis
|
|
- Enabled complex queries and pattern recognition
|
|
|
|
3. **CHANGELOG Review**
|
|
- Analyzed recent changes (v2.14.0 - v2.14.6)
|
|
- Correlated fixes with error patterns
|
|
|
|
### Analysis Approach
|
|
|
|
1. **Quantitative Analysis**
|
|
- Success/failure rates per tool
|
|
- Performance metrics (avg, median, p95, p99)
|
|
- User segmentation and cohort analysis
|
|
- Temporal trends and growth patterns
|
|
|
|
2. **Pattern Recognition**
|
|
- Tool sequence analysis (Markov chains)
|
|
- Node co-occurrence patterns
|
|
- Workflow complexity distribution
|
|
- Error clustering and root cause analysis
|
|
|
|
3. **Qualitative Insights**
|
|
- CHANGELOG integration
|
|
- Error message analysis
|
|
- User journey reconstruction
|
|
- Best practice identification
|
|
|
|
## How to Use This Analysis
|
|
|
|
### For Development Priorities
|
|
|
|
1. Review **P0 Critical Recommendations** (Section 8)
|
|
2. Check estimated effort and impact
|
|
3. Prioritize based on ROI (impact/effort ratio)
|
|
4. Follow implementation guides with code examples
|
|
|
|
### For Architecture Decisions
|
|
|
|
1. Review **Architectural Recommendations** (Section 9)
|
|
2. Consider service layer consolidation
|
|
3. Evaluate repository caching opportunities
|
|
4. Plan for 10x scale
|
|
|
|
### For Product Strategy
|
|
|
|
1. Review **Usage Patterns** (Section 3 & 5)
|
|
2. Understand user segments (power vs casual)
|
|
3. Identify high-value features (most-used tools)
|
|
4. Focus on reliability over features (96% success rate target)
|
|
|
|
### For Telemetry Enhancement
|
|
|
|
1. Review **Telemetry Enhancements** (Section 10)
|
|
2. Add fine-grained timing metrics
|
|
3. Track workflow creation funnels
|
|
4. Monitor node-level analytics
|
|
|
|
## Contact & Feedback
|
|
|
|
For questions about this analysis or to request additional insights:
|
|
- Data Analyst: Claude Code with Supabase MCP
|
|
- Analysis Date: October 2, 2025
|
|
- Data Period: September 26 - October 2, 2025
|
|
|
|
## Change Log
|
|
|
|
- **2025-10-02**: Initial comprehensive analysis completed
|
|
- 15 SQL analytical views created
|
|
- 13 sections of detailed findings
|
|
- P0/P1/P2 recommendations with implementation guides
|
|
- Code examples and effort estimates provided
|
|
|
|
## Next Steps
|
|
|
|
1. ✅ Review findings with development team
|
|
2. ✅ Prioritize P0 recommendations for immediate implementation
|
|
3. ✅ Plan P1 features for next release cycle
|
|
4. ✅ Set up monitoring for key metrics
|
|
5. ✅ Schedule follow-up analysis (weekly recommended)
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
*This analysis represents a snapshot of n8n-mcp usage during early adoption phase. Patterns may evolve as the user base grows and matures.*
|