Skip to main content
Glama

n8n_delete_tag

DestructiveIdempotent

Remove a tag from the n8n system and automatically detach it from all associated workflows while keeping the workflows intact.

Instructions

Remove tag from system. Automatically removes this tag from all workflows using it. Tag removal does not affect workflows themselves, only the tag association.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesTag ID to permanently delete

Implementation Reference

  • Handler function that executes the deleteTag logic by making an HTTP DELETE request to the n8n API endpoint /tags/{id}
    async deleteTag(id: string) {
      return this.request(`${this.apiBase}/tags/${id}`, { method: 'DELETE' });
    }
  • Tool schema definition with name, description, input parameters (id: string, required), and annotations indicating it's a destructive, idempotent operation
      name: 'n8n_delete_tag',
      description: 'Remove tag from system. Automatically removes this tag from all workflows using it. Tag removal does not affect workflows themselves, only the tag association.',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          id: { type: 'string', description: 'Tag ID to permanently delete' },
        },
        required: ['id'],
      },
      annotations: {
        title: 'Delete Tag',
        readOnlyHint: false,
        destructiveHint: true,
        idempotentHint: true,
        openWorldHint: true,
      },
    },
  • src/server.ts:75-76 (registration)
    Switch case that routes 'n8n_delete_tag' tool calls to the client.deleteTag handler method with the id argument
    case 'n8n_delete_tag':
      return client.deleteTag(args.id);
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds valuable context beyond this: it clarifies that tag removal affects only tag associations, not workflows themselves, and specifies automatic cleanup from workflows. This enhances transparency without contradicting annotations, though it could mention permissions or rate limits.

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 front-loaded with the main action ('Remove tag from system') and uses two concise sentences that each add value: the first states the purpose, and the second clarifies behavioral impact. There is no wasted text, making it efficiently structured and easy to parse.

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 tool's complexity (destructive operation with one parameter) and rich annotations (e.g., destructiveHint, idempotentHint), the description is mostly complete. It explains the action and its effects on workflows, but lacks output details (no output schema) and doesn't cover error cases or prerequisites, leaving minor gaps.

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 100%, with the parameter 'id' fully documented in the schema as 'Tag ID to permanently delete'. The description does not add any additional meaning or details about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Remove tag from system') and resource ('tag'), distinguishing it from siblings like n8n_delete_workflow or n8n_delete_user by focusing on tags. It elaborates on the scope by mentioning automatic removal from workflows, making the purpose explicit and distinct.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool—to delete a tag and remove its associations from workflows—but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. For example, it doesn't contrast with n8n_update_tag or mention if tag deletion is irreversible, leaving some guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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

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/node2flow-th/n8n-management-mcp-community'

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