Skip to main content
Glama
DrBalls

n8n MCP Server

by DrBalls

Delete n8n Tag

n8n_delete_tag
DestructiveIdempotent

Remove tags from n8n workflows by providing the tag ID, helping organize and clean up workflow automation projects.

Instructions

Delete a tag.

Args:

  • id (string): Tag ID to delete

Returns: Confirmation of deletion.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe unique identifier of the resource

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function for the `n8n_delete_tag` tool. It takes an ID from the input schema and calls the delete API endpoint.
      // ============ Delete Tag ============
      server.registerTool(
        'n8n_delete_tag',
        {
          title: 'Delete n8n Tag',
          description: `Delete a tag.
    
    Args:
      - id (string): Tag 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(`/tags/${params.id}`);
          
          return {
            content: [{ type: 'text', text: `✅ Tag ${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 context beyond annotations: it specifies that deletion requires a tag ID and returns a confirmation. Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true (irreversible change) and idempotentHint=true (safe to retry), but the description clarifies the confirmation response. It doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or error cases, but provides useful operational details.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence 'Delete a tag.' clearly states the purpose. The Args/Returns sections are structured but could be more integrated. There's no wasted text, though the parameter description is slightly redundant with the schema.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a destructive tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic operation and response but lacks details on error handling, permissions, or dependencies. Annotations provide safety hints, but the description doesn't fully compensate for the missing output schema or contextual nuances given the tool's irreversible nature.

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 'Tag ID to delete', which is redundant with the schema. No additional syntax, format, or constraints are provided beyond what the schema already covers.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

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 tag'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'n8n_update_tag' or 'n8n_get_tag' by specifying deletion rather than modification or retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other deletion tools like 'n8n_delete_workflow' or 'n8n_delete_project' beyond the resource type.

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 tag ID from 'n8n_get_tag' or 'n8n_list_tags'), consequences of deletion, or when not to use it (e.g., if the tag is in use). With siblings like 'n8n_update_tag' available, there's no comparison or context for choosing deletion over modification.

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