Remove a node from an n8n workflow by workflow ID and node ID. Optionally cascade-delete all connections to and from the node to keep the workflow clean.
Delete a node from a workflow
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nodeId | Yes | The node ID to delete | |
| workflowId | Yes | The workflow ID | |
| cascadeDelete | No | Delete all connections to/from this node |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says nothing about whether deletion is reversible, whether it requires an active/inactive workflow, or what the cascadeDelete default of true actually implies at runtime. This is a destructive mutation with zero disclosure.
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?
A single short sentence with no filler, front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of missing detail rather than being a structural flaw.
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 operation with no annotations, no output schema, and no behavioral guidance, the description is insufficient. An agent cannot tell the consequences, prerequisites, or that cascadeDelete defaults to true, without inspecting the schema.
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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clear verb and resource: deleting a node from a workflow. It does not name or differentiate itself from siblings like update_node or delete_connection, but the action is unambiguous.
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 when-to-use, no prerequisites, no alternatives. It doesn't warn that related connections may also be affected or point to delete_connection for removing connections instead. An agent gets no routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.