Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

neonloops

by com.neonloops
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Tables: read

tables_read
Read-only

Reads this neonloops workspace's tables, one depth per call. With no table_id: the tables, with name, role (control, lookup, queue, log or config, which decides whether a workflow may write to it), row and column counts and owning project; without project_id that is the workspace-level tables only, never every project's. With table_id: its columns (ids, types, which are machine-owned), saved views, the workflows bound to it, and whether a workflow write would be refused now; a step's table binding takes these ids. With table_id plus view_id, offset or limit: a window of its rows, with matchTotal and hasMore. Two depths at once are refused. Editing rows by hand is deliberately left to a person, in the app or on the full connection (/api/mcp/full); a workflow writes its tables when it runs.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "tables_read"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoWith table_id: rows per window, default 100, max 500. A window can come back shorter.
offsetNoWith table_id: how many rows you have received so far, 0 for the first window. Advance it by the received count, never by limit.
view_idNoWith table_id: read the rows through this saved view's filter. A view that no longer exists reads every row.
table_idNoOne table: its columns, views and bindings, or with view_id, offset or limit its rows.
project_idNoList this project's tables instead of the workspace-level ones. Not with table_id.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes further by explaining that role decides whether a workflow may write, that the table_id depth reports whether a workflow write would be refused now, and that conflicting depths are rejected. It does not cover pagination stability or what happens with a nonexistent table_id, which keeps it below 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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then ordered by increasing depth (workspace → table → rows), which matches how an agent would decide. It is a single dense run-on paragraph, though, and the trailing sentence about hand-editing could be trimmed or split for scanability.

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

Completeness5/5

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

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields (name, role, row/column counts, owning project, columns, saved views, bindings, matchTotal, hasMore). For a five-parameter read-only tool with 0 required params, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by explaining the combinatorial semantics — view_id/offset/limit only take effect with table_id, project_id is incompatible with table_id, and "a step's table binding takes these ids". It still defers all numeric detail (default 100, max 500, advance by received count) to the schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Reads this neonloops workspace's tables") and immediately defines the three depth modes: no table_id, table_id, and table_id plus view_id/offset/limit. It also states what it is not ("never every project's", editing left to a person), which separates it cleanly from the workflows_*/runs_* siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit when-to-use routing per argument combination: bare call for the table inventory, table_id for schema/views/bindings, table_id plus view_id/offset/limit for rows. It also states exclusions — "Two depths at once are refused" and hand-editing is deliberately out of scope, pointing to the app or /api/mcp/full instead.

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

All neonloops toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources