Neo4j MCP Server

neo4j_delete

Delete nodes by label and matching properties, with option to detach relationships.

Instructions

Delete nodes matching label + match_properties.

Args: label: Node label to match. match_properties: Properties to identify the node(s). detach: If True, delete node even if it has relationships (DETACH DELETE).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "label": "<label>",
      "match_properties": "<match_properties>"
    },
    "name": "neo4j_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`label`	Yes
`detach`	No
`match_properties`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the DETACH DELETE behavior (detach parameter) but lacks details on irreversibility, required permissions, or impact on related data. Moderate transparency.

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 extremely concise: one introductory line plus a compact bullet list of parameters. Every sentence is necessary and no information is redundant or verbose.

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 output schema exists, the description adequately explains inputs. However, it could mention the return type (e.g., number of deleted nodes) or error cases. Still sufficient for a delete operation with a clear pattern.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

All three parameters (label, match_properties, detach) are explained in the description, adding clear meaning beyond the input schema (which has 0% coverage). The docstring provides explicit definitions and usage hints.

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 verb 'delete' and the resource 'nodes' with matching criteria (label + match_properties). It unambiguously distinguishes from sibling tools like neo4j_insert, neo4j_update, and neo4j_query.

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, no prerequisites, and no conditions for using the detach parameter. It simply describes the operation without contextual direction.

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

Deploy Server