Skip to main content
Glama
DrBalls

n8n MCP Server

by DrBalls

Delete n8n Project

n8n_delete_project
DestructiveIdempotent

Remove a project and all associated workflows and credentials from n8n automation platform using the project ID.

Instructions

Delete a project.

⚠️ WARNING: All workflows and credentials in this project will be affected!

Args:

  • id (string): Project 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_project tool. It uses the `del` helper to call the n8n API.
      server.registerTool(
        'n8n_delete_project',
        {
          title: 'Delete n8n Project',
          description: `Delete a project.
    
    ⚠️ WARNING: All workflows and credentials in this project will be affected!
    
    Args:
      - id (string): Project 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(`/projects/${params.id}`);
          
          return {
            content: [{ type: 'text', text: `✅ Project ${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 warning explicitly states that deletion affects all workflows and credentials in the project, which is crucial information not covered by the destructiveHint annotation alone. It doesn't contradict annotations (destructiveHint=true aligns with 'Delete'), and adds meaningful operational 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 perfectly structured: a clear purpose statement, prominent warning, and organized Args/Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place, with the warning being particularly valuable for a destructive operation. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive operation with clear annotations and a simple parameter schema, the description provides excellent completeness. The warning about cascading effects addresses the most critical contextual information, and the confirmation of return value is adequate without an output schema.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents the single 'id' parameter. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by restating 'Project ID to delete' in the Args section, but doesn't provide additional semantic context about format, sourcing, or constraints.

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 action ('Delete') and resource ('a project'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like n8n_delete_workflow or n8n_delete_credential by specifying it affects the entire project container. The warning about workflows and credentials further clarifies the scope.

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 about when to use this tool (to delete a project) and implicitly distinguishes it from other delete operations through the warning about affected resources. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives like deleting individual workflows instead.

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