Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
n8n MCP Server

n8n MCP Server

by verzth
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Uninstall n8n Community Package

n8n_uninstall_community_package
Destructive

Uninstall a community node package from n8n. Removes the npm package; workflows using its nodes will break. Use to clean up unused packages.

Instructions

Uninstall a community node package. Workflows using its nodes will break.

Args:

  • packageName (string): npm package name to uninstall

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "packageName": "<packageName>"
    },
    "name": "n8n_uninstall_community_package"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
packageNameYesnpm package name to uninstall

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description explicitly warns that 'Workflows using its nodes will break,' which adds specific behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation. This helps agents understand the impact. However, it doesn't disclose other aspects like reversibility or confirmation, but annotations already cover the destructive nature.

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 brief and front-loaded with the purpose, then a warning, then parameter list. Every sentence adds value and there is no fluff.

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?

For a simple one-parameter destructive tool, the description covers the purpose, the critical warning, and the parameter. It could be enhanced with a note about verifying the package name via listing, but overall it's complete enough given the schema and annotations.

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 description repeats the schema's parameter description almost verbatim ('npm package name to uninstall'), so it adds no new semantic information. Since schema coverage is 100%, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool uninstalls a community node package, using the specific verb 'Uninstall' and resource 'community node package.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like install and list.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or recommendations. It only states the action and its immediate consequence, but does not mention that users should verify workflows or use listing tools first.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools