airtable_list_basesList all Airtable bases the provided personal access token can access. Returns base IDs, names, and workspace info — use to discover baseId values needed by other airtable tools.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| _apiKey | Yes | Airtable personal access token |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bases | Yes | List of accessible Airtable bases |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "bases": {
+ "description": "List of accessible Airtable bases",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "id": {
+ "description": "Base ID",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "description": "Base name",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "workspaceId": {
+ "description": "Workspace ID this base belongs to",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "bases"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "_apiKey": "your-airtable-api-key"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnly and idempotent. The description adds that the token must be provided and the output includes base IDs, names, and workspace info, which is useful context beyond annotations.
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?
Two sentences that efficiently convey action, condition, output, and purpose. No superfluous words. Front-loaded with essential information.
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?
For a simple list tool with rich annotations and a single parameter, the description provides all necessary context: what it does, what it returns, and why to use it. An output schema exists, so return values are detailed separately.
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 coverage is 100% with one parameter. The description mentions '_apiKey' as token but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema description ('Airtable personal access token'). Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states it lists all accessible Airtable bases, with verb 'list' and resource 'bases'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explaining the output (IDs, names, workspace info) is used to discover baseId values needed by other Airtable tools.
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?
The description explicitly states the use case: 'discover baseId values needed by other airtable tools', implying it's a prerequisite. It does not mention when not to use or alternative tools, but among siblings it's the only base-listing tool, so guidance is sufficient.
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.