Skip to main content
Glama

Create a table

tables_create

A table with typed columns: text, long_text, number (with decimals or a currency), checkbox, date, datetime, select and multi_select (with options), email, url, phone, or file (a file_id from the file store). Values are checked against their column on the way in. Up to 100 columns and 100,000 rows. Costs $0.001 per call; nothing if it fails.

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "columns": "<columns>"
    },
    "name": "tables_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
columnsYes
descriptionNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses validation behavior ('Values are checked against their column'), limits (100 columns, 100,000 rows), and cost ($0.001 per call, nothing if it fails). It does not address permissions, idempotency semantics, or return behavior, but it adds substantial behavioral context.

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?

The text is compact and information-dense, with no wasted sentences. The opening is a noun phrase rather than a clear action statement, and the long type list is dense, but the key constraints and costs are front-loaded.

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 create tool with no output schema, the description covers column types and operational limits but omits the created object's return value, top-level parameter semantics, and when to choose this over related tools. It is adequate but incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does well for the complex `columns` array by explaining allowed types, options, currency/decimals, and file_id handling, but it says nothing about the top-level `name` or `description` parameters or required fields.

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 clearly characterizes the resource being created: a table with typed columns, validation, and row/column limits. It lacks an explicit verb and does not distinguish from siblings like tables_import or tables_change_columns, but the title and name supply 'create'.

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?

It gives no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as tables_import, tables_change_columns, or tables_list. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and context.

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