Permanently removes a GoHighLevel workflow by ID and returns the deleted workflow name for confirmation. Use when a workflow is no longer needed, since deletion cannot be undone.
Delete a workflow permanently. Returns the deleted workflow name for confirmation. No undo — the workflow is removed from GHL immediately.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| workflowId | Yes | The workflow ID to delete (from list_workflows) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is known; the description usefully adds that the deletion is permanent, irreversible ('no undo'), applied immediately in GHL, and that the deleted workflow name is echoed back for confirmation. It does not mention auth/permission requirements or any failure modes, but it meaningfully enriches the behavioral picture.
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?
Three short sentences, zero filler, with the destructive nature and the confirmation return value both front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.
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 one-parameter destructive tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description covers permanence, immediacy, irreversibility, and the return value. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.
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 100% and the single parameter already documents itself, including the hint that the ID comes from list_workflows. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a workflow') and adds the scope qualifier 'permanently'. The action is clearly distinct from siblings like clone_workflow, move_workflow, or update_workflow, though it does not explicitly name 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?
The description gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives (e.g., audit_workflow first, or move_workflow to relocate instead). The 'No undo' line is a warning about consequences, not usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.