Skip to main content
Glama

delete-tag

Remove a specific tag by its ID and associated client ID to streamline data management within the MCP-N8N server.

Instructions

Delete a tag by ID.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
clientIdYes
idYes

Implementation Reference

  • The execution handler for the delete-tag tool. Retrieves the N8nClient by clientId and calls its deleteTag method with the provided tag id, returning success or error response.
    case "delete-tag": {
      const { clientId, id } = args as { clientId: string; id: string };
      const client = clients.get(clientId);
      if (!client) {
        return {
          content: [{
            type: "text",
            text: "Client not initialized. Please run init-n8n first.",
          }],
          isError: true
        };
      }
    
      try {
        const tag = await client.deleteTag(id);
        return {
          content: [{
            type: "text",
            text: `Successfully deleted tag:\n${JSON.stringify(tag, null, 2)}`,
          }]
        };
      } catch (error) {
        return {
          content: [{
            type: "text",
            text: error instanceof Error ? error.message : "Unknown error occurred",
          }],
          isError: true
        };
      }
    }
  • The core implementation in N8nClient class that sends DELETE request to /tags/{id} endpoint.
    async deleteTag(id: string): Promise<N8nTag> {
      return this.makeRequest<N8nTag>(`/tags/${id}`, {
        method: 'DELETE',
      });
    }
  • src/index.ts:784-794 (registration)
    Tool registration in the ListToolsRequestSchema response, including name, description, and input schema.
      name: "delete-tag",
      description: "Delete a tag by ID.",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          clientId: { type: "string" },
          id: { type: "string" }
        },
        required: ["clientId", "id"]
      }
    },
  • Input schema definition for the delete-tag tool.
      name: "delete-tag",
      description: "Delete a tag by ID.",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          clientId: { type: "string" },
          id: { type: "string" }
        },
        required: ["clientId", "id"]
      }
    },
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Delete') which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't specify consequences (e.g., irreversible, cascading effects), permissions required, error conditions, or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, achieving optimal conciseness for such a simple tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks critical details like behavioral traits, parameter explanations beyond 'id', and expected outcomes. For a tool that permanently removes data, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'by ID', which clarifies the 'id' parameter's purpose, but doesn't explain 'clientId' or provide format details. Since parameters are minimal (2) and the description adds some meaning for one parameter, it meets the baseline but doesn't fully address the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a tag by ID'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get-tag' or 'update-tag' by specifying deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other delete operations like 'delete-project' or 'delete-workflow', though the resource type is implied.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., tag must exist), exclusions (e.g., cannot delete if in use), or compare to siblings like 'update-tag' or 'get-tag'. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and context.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Related Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/fellipesaraiva88/n8n-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server