Remove stored credentials by ID from n8n automation instances. Securely delete authentication data you own to manage access controls.
Delete a credential by ID. You must be the owner of the credentials.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| clientId | Yes | ||
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the ownership requirement, which is useful, but doesn't disclose other behavioral traits such as whether the deletion is permanent, reversible, requires confirmation, has side effects, or what happens on success/failure. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
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 two concise sentences with zero waste, front-loading the core action and following with a key constraint. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information efficiently.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (destructive operation), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It misses critical details like parameter meanings, behavioral outcomes, and error handling, making it insufficient for safe and effective use.
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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'ID' but doesn't explain what 'clientId' or 'id' represent, their formats, or relationships. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, failing to address the undocumented parameters adequately.
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 action ('Delete') and resource ('credential by ID'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete-execution', 'delete-project', etc., which follow the same pattern, so it's not fully distinctive.
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 includes a prerequisite ('You must be the owner of the credentials'), which implies when to use it based on ownership. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'delete-user' or provide exclusions, leaving usage context partially implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.