Delete a Nango connection by providing environment, connection ID, and provider config key. Use this to clean up integration data and revoke access.
Delete one Nango connection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| environment | Yes | ||
| connectionId | Yes | ||
| providerConfigKey | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / connectionIdAdded value: +{
+ "title": "Connectionid",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / connection_idRemoved value: -{
- "title": "Connection Id",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / providerConfigKeyAdded value: +{
+ "title": "Providerconfigkey",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / provider_config_keyRemoved value: -{
- "title": "Provider Config Key",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "environment",
- "connection_id",
- "provider_config_key"
-]New value: +[
+ "environment",
+ "connectionId",
+ "providerConfigKey"
+]v1.0.0Input schema / properties / confirmationRemoved value: -{
- "default": "",
- "title": "Confirmation",
- "type": "string"
-}v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only states that a deletion occurs, without disclosing whether the deletion is permanent, requires special permissions, or cascades to related provider resources.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, front-loaded, and free of filler. However, it is arguably under-sized given the destructive nature of the operation and the lack of annotations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits important context such as whether deletion is reversible, what happens to the connection's credentials, and how the three required parameters uniquely identify the connection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to environment, connectionId, or providerConfigKey. The agent is left with only the parameter names and cannot infer relationships, formats, or constraints from the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Delete') and a clear resource ('one Nango connection'), so the core purpose is unambiguous. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like delete_integration or list_connections, though it does not explicitly reference them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as delete_integration, refresh_connection_credentials, or replace_connection_tags. No exclusions, prerequisites, or selection criteria are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.