Skip to main content
Glama
DrBalls

n8n MCP Server

by DrBalls

Delete n8n Execution

n8n_delete_execution
DestructiveIdempotent

Remove a specific workflow execution by ID to manage automation history. This action cannot be undone, so use it to delete completed or failed executions.

Instructions

Delete a specific execution by ID.

⚠️ WARNING: This action cannot be undone!

Args:

  • id (string): Execution ID to delete

Returns: Confirmation of deletion.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe unique identifier of the resource

Implementation Reference

  • The registration and handler implementation for the 'n8n_delete_execution' tool. It uses the `IdParamSchema` for input validation and calls the `del` service to perform the API request.
      server.registerTool(
        'n8n_delete_execution',
        {
          title: 'Delete n8n Execution',
          description: `Delete a specific execution by ID.
    
    ⚠️ WARNING: This action cannot be undone!
    
    Args:
      - id (string): Execution ID to delete
    
    Returns:
      Confirmation of deletion.`,
          inputSchema: IdParamSchema,
          annotations: {
            readOnlyHint: false,
            destructiveHint: true,
            idempotentHint: true,
            openWorldHint: false
          }
        },
        async (params: z.infer<typeof IdParamSchema>) => {
          await del(`/executions/${params.id}`);
          
          return {
            content: [{ type: 'text', text: `✅ Execution ${params.id} deleted successfully.` }],
            structuredContent: { deleted: true, id: params.id }
          };
        }
      );
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the explicit warning '⚠️ WARNING: This action cannot be undone!' emphasizes the destructive nature, which annotations already indicate with destructiveHint=true. It also specifies the return value ('Confirmation of deletion'), which isn't covered by annotations. However, it doesn't mention idempotency (covered by idempotentHint=true) or other traits like rate limits or authentication needs.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a critical warning, then structured Arg/Return sections. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the action, the warning highlights risk, and the bullet points clarify input/output without fluff. It's appropriately sized for a single-parameter destructive operation.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (destructive mutation with one parameter), annotations cover safety and idempotency, and schema fully documents the input. The description adds the irreversibility warning and return value note, compensating for the lack of output schema. However, it misses usage context (e.g., relationship with sibling tools), leaving a minor gap.

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%, with the parameter 'id' fully documented in the schema as 'The unique identifier of the resource'. The description adds minimal value by restating 'Execution ID to delete', which is redundant with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Delete') and target resource ('a specific execution by ID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'n8n_delete_executions' (plural) and 'n8n_stop_execution' (which halts rather than removes). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the execution ID from 'n8n_get_execution' or 'n8n_list_executions'), nor does it differentiate from similar tools like 'n8n_delete_executions' (bulk deletion) or 'n8n_stop_execution' (halting active executions). The warning about irreversibility is a safety note, not usage guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/DrBalls/n8n-mcp-server-v2'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server