table_create
Create a new table with columns
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| label | Yes | ||
| columns | Yes |
Create a new table with columns
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| label | Yes | ||
| columns | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / columns / itemsRemoved value: -{
- "properties": {
- "label": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "name": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "options": {
- "items": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "type": "array"
- },
- "required": {
- "type": "boolean"
- },
- "type": {
- "enum": [
- "text",
- "number",
- "date",
- "datetime",
- "boolean",
- "options",
- "email",
- "phone",
- "url",
- "currency",
- "relation",
- "attachment"
- ],
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "name"
- ],
- "type": "object"
-}Input schema / properties / detail_tableRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Nombre tabla de items/detalle (solo si table_type=document)",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / document_configRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Config PDF: {header_fields, total_fields, doc_title}",
- "type": "object"
-}Input schema / properties / label / descriptionRemoved value: -"Nombre visible"Input schema / properties / name / descriptionRemoved value: -"Nombre interno (sin espacios)"Input schema / properties / table_typeRemoved value: -{
- "description": "table=normal, document=con cabecera+detalle+PDF",
- "enum": [
- "table",
- "document"
- ],
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "name",
- "columns"
-]New value: +[
+ "name",
+ "label",
+ "columns"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action ('create') without disclosing side effects, permissions, response format, error conditions, or constraints on the columns array. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.
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 a single, front-loaded, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately short, though slightly more detail could be added without negatively affecting conciseness.
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?
Given three required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It lacks parameter semantics, usage context, and behavioral details, making it insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool 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 0%, and the description adds no meaning to any parameter. It says 'with columns' but does not explain what name, label, or columns mean, nor the expected structure of the columns array. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.
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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Create a new table') and clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tables_list, which is for listing. It is immediately obvious what the tool does.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing schema), and no note that tables_list should be used for viewing existing tables. Usage is only implied rather than explained.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource: configuration, tables, templates, or views. Within each resource, actions are clearly separated (create vs list, install vs list), leaving no ambiguity.
All tools follow a resource_action pattern (e.g., config_get, table_create, tables_list), but there is minor inconsistency in singular/plural usage (table_create vs tables_list vs template_install). The pattern is still predictable and readable.
Six tools cover the core configuration and management functions without being excessive. Each tool has a clear purpose, making the set well-scoped for its domain.
The set covers the main lifecycle for configurations, tables, templates, and views (get, create, list, install). Missing update/delete operations for tables and views are minor gaps that agents can likely work around, as the focus appears to be initial setup.