Fetch a single row by id without listing the full table. Useful when a cue payload carries a row id and the agent only needs that one record. Returns the same row shape as list_rows.
| 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool fetches a single row (read-only implication), avoids full-table listing (efficiency behavior), and returns the same row shape as list_rows (return format). It does not cover error cases or permissions, but these are less critical for a simple fetch.
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, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence contributes value: the first states the action and scope, the second provides usage context and a return-shape reference. No redundancy or filler.
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 single-row fetch with two well-documented parameters, the description covers the core purpose, usage context, and return shape. It does not explain not-found behavior, but the simplicity of the tool and the existing schema make the description sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both slug and rowId. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.
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 a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch a single row by id'. It also distinguishes this tool from the sibling list_rows by noting it does so 'without listing the full table', making the purpose unambiguous and well-differentiated.
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 explicitly provides a use case: 'Useful when a cue payload carries a row id and the agent only needs that one record.' It contrasts with listing the full table and references list_rows for shape consistency, but it does not explicitly name an alternative for fetching multiple rows or state when not to use this tool.
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.