Skip to main content
Glama

oto_node_rows

One PAGE of rows of a table node, by OPAQUE cursor — never an offset. Send cursor back exactly as received; nextCursor: null means there is nothing left. columns travel with every page (they describe the whole list, not the page) and total is the count WITH filters applied — that is what a footer shows. Cells are strings already rendered by the server. Optional q (full text), sort + direction (a column KEY, never its title), filter as key:value entries. A node that does not exist, that you cannot see, or that is not a table all answer the SAME 404 — telling them apart would leak what a node is. PROVISIONAL surface.

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": {
      "node_id": "<node_id>"
    },
    "name": "oto_node_rows"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qNofree-text search over the row. Every WORD of `q` must be found, in any order, either by meaning (French stemming, accents and case folded: `cahiers` finds "Le Cahier", `corp acme` finds "ACME Corp") or as a literal FRAGMENT (a piece of a SIREN, an URL or a reference pasted as is). Without an explicit sort, best matches come first (rows matched by meaning, then rows matched only by fragment); an explicit sort stays yours. Where to search is `q_scope`.
_orgNo
sortNo
limitNo
cursorNo
filterNo
node_idYes
q_scopeNowhere `q` searches: `values` = only the values a reader is served (no column names, no layers — `origine`/`comment`/`link` — no JSON quoting); `all` = the whole stored row, names and layers included (finds a row by its `comment`). Default `all`. Any other value is refused.
directionNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

No schema history has been recorded yet.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: cells are already server-rendered strings, `columns` and `total` describe the whole filtered list rather than the page, and a missing/invisible/non-table node all return the same 404 by design to avoid leaking existence. That is genuinely useful behavioral context an agent could not infer. Auth requirements and rate limits remain undisclosed, so not a 5.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the pagination contract comes first, then the per-page invariants, then the query params, then the 404 policy. Nearly every clause earns its place, though the caps-heavy phrasing and the trailing 'PROVISIONAL surface' note add mild noise.

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?

It covers the output contract (columns, total, nextCursor) and the filter/search semantics, which compensates for having no output schema. However, with no annotations and no coverage for limit/_org/node_id, an agent still cannot tell how page size is controlled or what _org does, so the definition is not complete for a tool of this complexity.

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?

Schema coverage is only 22%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the tricky params: `cursor` is opaque and round-trip only, `sort`/`direction` take a column KEY not a title, `filter` is `key:value` entries, `q` is full text. But `limit`, `_org`, and the required `node_id` are never explained anywhere, leaving real gaps for a 9-param tool.

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?

"One PAGE of rows of a table node, by OPAQUE cursor" states a specific verb-scoped operation on a specific resource and immediately narrows it against the broader oto_node / data_rows family by insisting on cursor pagination rather than offsets. An agent can tell this paginates row content of a table node, not node metadata.

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?

Gives explicit operational rules: send `cursor` back exactly as received, `nextCursor: null` means stop, use `sort` with a column KEY rather than its title, and an explicit sort overrides relevance ordering from `q`. It does not name a sibling alternative (e.g. oto_search or oto_node) or say when not to use this tool, so it stops short of 5.

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