Permanently delete a row from a workspace. This action cannot be undone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The workspace slug. Accepts either the bare slug ('my-workspace') or the org-prefixed form ('my-org/my-workspace') as shown in the dashboard URL; both resolve to the same workspace. | |
| rowId | Yes | The row ID to delete |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It explicitly states 'Permanently delete' and 'This action cannot be undone,' clearly conveying the critical behavioral trait of irreversibility. However, it does not disclose other potential behaviors such as permission requirements or cascading effects, leaving minor gaps.
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 sentences, each with clear purpose. The first states the action and target, the second emphasizes irreversibility. There is no filler or redundant information, making it both concise and well-structured.
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?
For a simple deletion tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and the irreversible nature. It lacks explicit usage alternatives and side-effect details, but the schema and sibling tool list provide sufficient context. It is not critically incomplete, though adding usage guidance would improve it.
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?
The input schema provides descriptions for both parameters (slug and rowId), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 tool's action: 'Permanently delete a row from a workspace.' It uses a specific verb (delete) and resource (row), and the permanence caveat helps distinguish it from update_row or move_rows. Although it doesn't name sibling tools explicitly, the resource specificity differentiates it from other delete tools like delete_workspace or delete_file.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, permissions, or cases where another delete tool (e.g., delete_workspace, delete_file) would be more appropriate. The only additional information is the irreversibility warning, which addresses consequence, not usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, with detailed descriptions that prevent confusion. The main ambiguity arises from send_message vs. the referenced but missing message_teammate tool, and add_column vs. update_surface for schema changes, but these are mostly clarified by the descriptions.
The naming convention is predominantly verb_noun with underscores (e.g., create_workspace, list_rows, update_doc). Exceptions like 'search' and 'address_book' (no noun) and the two-word 'react_to_comment' are minor deviations in an otherwise consistent pattern.
With 68 tools, the surface is far too large for an MCP server, exceeding the 50+ threshold for extreme mismatch. This volume creates excessive selection overhead for agents and suggests the tool set could be consolidated or split into focused servers.
The server covers broad functionality across workspaces, docs, tables, HTML, comments, files, webhooks, and billing. However, notable gaps exist: the explicitly referenced message_teammate tool is missing (preventing agent-to-agent waking), and there is no create/upload file tool or create API key tool, which creates dead ends in workflows.