Delete a Nango integration from a specified environment by its integration ID to clean up unused configurations and keep your setup organized.
Delete a Nango integration.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| environment | Yes | ||
| integrationId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / integrationIdAdded value: +{
+ "title": "Integrationid",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / integration_idRemoved value: -{
- "title": "Integration Id",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "environment",
- "integration_id"
-]New value: +[
+ "environment",
+ "integrationId"
+]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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but 'Delete a Nango integration' does not mention irreversibility, side effects on existing connections, permissions required, or post-deletion state. It adds no behavioral information beyond what the tool name already conveys.
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 a single clear sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is immediately readable and every word contributes to stating the core purpose, making it maximally concise.
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 two required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description lacks all contextual detail: no side effects, no parameter semantics, no prerequisites, and no return value expectations. An agent cannot confidently construct a correct and safe invocation.
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 does not define 'environment' or 'integrationId' beyond their names. No formats, examples, constraints, or relationships between the parameters are given, leaving the agent to guess valid inputs.
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 clearly states the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'a Nango integration', making the core purpose unambiguous. It is naturally differentiated from sibling tools like create_integration, update_integration, get_integration, and list_integrations by the destructive verb.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no indication of prerequisites, such as whether the integration must exist first, or how this relates to delete_connection, which handles a different resource. Usage context is only implied by the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.