Skip to main content
Glama

Teable MCP (Official)

create-records

Create records using compact array format (saves tokens).

FORMAT: { "tableId": "tblXXX", "header": ["Name", "Status", "Priority"], "records": [ ["Task A", "Done", "High"], ["Task B", "Pending", "Low"] ] }

RULES:

  • header: Array of field names (define column order)

  • records: 2D array where each row matches header order

  • Empty cells: use null or ""

VALUE TYPES:

  • Text: "Hello"

  • Number: 42 or 3.14

  • Boolean: true / false

  • Date: "2025-01-27"

  • Select: "Option A"

  • MultiSelect: ["A", "B"]

  • Link: "Record Name"

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": {
      "tableId": "<tableId>",
      "header": "<header>",
      "records": "<records>"
    },
    "name": "create-records"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
headerYesArray of field names in order. Example: ["Name", "Status", "Priority"]
recordsYesArray of record rows. Each row is an array of values matching header order. Example: [["Task A", "Done", 1], ["Task B", "Pending", 2]]
tableIdYesThe ID of the table to create records in
typecastNoAutomatically convert field values to proper types

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare the write/non-destructive/non-idempotent profile, so the description need not restate safety. It adds genuinely useful behavioral detail (column-order coupling between header and rows, null/empty-string handling, per-type value encoding), but says nothing about failure behavior, partial writes, batch size limits, or how typecast affects values.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then clearly sectioned into FORMAT, RULES, and VALUE TYPES; every block is scannable. The JSON example duplicates the schema's own examples and the RULES block restates the format, so there is minor redundancy.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the input contract well and annotations cover the safety profile. It is still incomplete on what an agent most needs after calling: whether rows are created atomically, what errors look like, and when this beats update-records or call-api-write.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, and the description goes beyond the schema by explaining positional coupling of header to each row and how each value type should be encoded (dates, multi-select arrays, links). It omits the typecast parameter entirely, leaving that to the schema alone.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Create records") and immediately pins down the required compact array format with a worked example. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like update-records or call-api-write, so an agent cannot route on purpose alone.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus update-records, call-api-write, or sql-query, and no prerequisites or limits are stated. The FORMAT/RULES sections describe how to call it, not when, so usage is left entirely to inference.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources