Skip to main content
Glama

n8n_delete_user

DestructiveIdempotent

Remove a user from your n8n instance to revoke access immediately while preserving their workflows. Requires instance owner permissions.

Instructions

Remove user from n8n instance. Only available to instance owner. Cannot delete the owner account. Deleted users lose access immediately. Workflows created by this user remain intact.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesUser ID to permanently delete (not email)

Implementation Reference

  • The deleteUser method that implements the tool logic - makes a DELETE request to the n8n API endpoint /users/{id}
    async deleteUser(id: string) {
      return this.request(`${this.apiBase}/users/${id}`, { method: 'DELETE' });
    }
  • Tool definition with input schema requiring an 'id' parameter (string) and annotations indicating it's a destructive operation
      name: 'n8n_delete_user',
      description: 'Remove user from n8n instance. Only available to instance owner. Cannot delete the owner account. Deleted users lose access immediately. Workflows created by this user remain intact.',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          id: { type: 'string', description: 'User ID to permanently delete (not email)' },
        },
        required: ['id'],
      },
      annotations: {
        title: 'Delete User',
        readOnlyHint: false,
        destructiveHint: true,
        idempotentHint: true,
        openWorldHint: true,
      },
    },
  • src/server.ts:83-84 (registration)
    Routes the 'n8n_delete_user' tool call to the client.deleteUser method with the id argument
    case 'n8n_delete_user':
      return client.deleteUser(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 specifies that deletion is immediate ('lose access immediately'), clarifies permission constraints ('Only available to instance owner'), and notes data persistence ('Workflows created by this user remain intact'). This enriches the behavioral understanding without contradicting annotations.

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 efficiently structured in four concise sentences, each providing critical information without redundancy. It front-loads the core action and progressively adds constraints and consequences, making every sentence earn its place.

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 user deletion), rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), and lack of output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, permissions, constraints, and immediate effects, though it could mention potential recovery options or error scenarios for full completeness.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting the single parameter 'id' as 'User ID to permanently delete (not email)'. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline 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 user') and resource ('from n8n instance'), distinguishing it from siblings like n8n_update_user_role or n8n_get_user. It precisely defines the operation without being vague or tautological.

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 ('Only available to instance owner') and exclusions ('Cannot delete the owner account'), but does not explicitly name alternatives like n8n_update_user_role for demoting users instead of deleting them. This gives strong guidance but stops short of full alternative specification.

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