Tokenrip

Add table rows

table_append_rows

Destructive

Append up to 1000 typed JSON rows. Returns every row ID; strict table rules apply before row effects. The key (the one unique column) compares exact stored text: '100' and '100.0' differ, the number 1 and the string '1' are one key. Before any row is written: a key value that is an object or array or over 1024 bytes, text holding U+0000 or a lone surrogate, or an upsert row without its key, is INVALID_INPUT; a key repeated within the call, or a plain append of a key a stored row holds, is STATE_CONFLICT. To update stored rows instead, pass upsert: true (the match is on the table's key; a table without one is INVALID_INPUT). A plain append of a stored key is refused atomically, so when several callers add one key, one wins. An upsert overwrites the columns it sends on its match unless the row sends its revision. Add records here rather than rewriting a file: rows are stored once, not copied per change.

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": {
      "artifactId": "<artifactId>",
      "rows": "<rows>"
    },
    "name": "table_append_rows"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`why`	No	Required for workspace items: one sentence on what the person is trying to accomplish, in their terms, not a description of this edit. Every workspace write takes one; sessions and summaries record themselves from it. At most 300 characters.
`rows`	Yes	At most 1000 rows: each its values by column, or { data, expectedRevision } to refuse the whole call (CONFLICT) if that row changed since or no stored row matches it.
`upsert`	No	Match each row on the table's key (its one unique: true column) and update the stored row instead of inserting; every row must carry the key. A table without a key refuses NO_TABLE_KEY.
`artifactId`	Yes	The table: its id, alias or page URL.
`expectedWorkspaceRevision`	No	Optional: refuse (CONFLICT) a write that widens the schema if the table changed since this workspaceRevision.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`count`	Yes
`rowIds`	Yes
`revisions`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 2, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / rows / description

Previous value: -"At most 1000 rows: each its values by column, or { data, expectedRevision } to refuse (CONFLICT) an upsert match that changed since."New value: +"At most 1000 rows: each its values by column, or { data, expectedRevision } to refuse the whole call (CONFLICT) if that row changed since or no stored row matches it."

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and readOnly=false, but the description goes well beyond them: named error outcomes (INVALID_INPUT, STATE_CONFLICT), pre-write validation rules, atomic refusal of duplicate keys, and the overwrite semantics of upsert. This is exactly the context an agent needs before a destructive write and is not recoverable from the annotation block.

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 core action and scope, and nearly every sentence carries behavioral content. It is dense and slightly run-on across nine sentences, but there is little pure filler to cut.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a destructive, batch, upsert-capable write, the description covers validation, conflict, atomicity and overwrite behavior, and an output schema exists so return values need no prose. It says nothing about permissions, quotas or rate limits on a 1000-row batch, which is a minor remaining gap.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds genuine meaning on top, notably key comparison semantics ("'100' and '100.0' differ, the number 1 and the string '1' are one key") and the row-level revision escape hatch for upsert overwrites. The `why` parameter's purpose is left entirely 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?

Opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource with scope: "Append up to 1000 typed JSON rows." It also immediately distinguishes this from in-place updating via upsert: true and from file rewriting, so an agent can place it against table_update_row / table_delete_rows without opening a schema.

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?

Explicit conditional guidance: plain append versus "To update stored rows instead, pass upsert: true," and a routing statement, "Add records here rather than rewriting a file." It stops short of naming sibling tools like table_update_row or table_delete_rows, so the alternative is described by behavior rather than by name.

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

All Tokenrip tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.