Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
airtable-user-mcp

airtable-user-mcp

by Automations-Project
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

delete_records

Destructive

Delete one or more Airtable records from a table in a single batch call using record IDs; already-deleted rows are skipped by the server.

Instructions

Delete one or more records from a table in a single batch call. The returned deleted count equals rowIds.length (optimistic) — already-deleted rows are silently skipped by the server.

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": {
      "appId": "<appId>",
      "tableId": "<tableId>",
      "rowIds": "<rowIds>"
    },
    "name": "delete_records"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
appIdYesThe Airtable base/application ID
debugNoWhen true, include raw Airtable response in output for diagnostics
rowIdsYesRecord IDs to delete (e.g. ["recXXX"])
viewIdNoOptional view ID passed as UI context; does NOT filter which records are deleted — rowIds is the sole selector.
tableIdYesThe table ID containing the records

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.0.9

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description still adds real value by disclosing that the returned count is optimistic and that already-deleted rows are silently skipped, but it omits whether the deletion is permanent, whether batch-size limits apply, and what permissions are required.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler, and the destructive action is front-loaded before the edge-case behavior. It is efficient, though slightly under-specified rather than incomplete.

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?

The tool is a destructive batch mutation with annotations covering the safety profile and a fully described schema, and the description fills the key gap around skipped rows and the optimistic count. Adding a note on permanence or batch-size limits would make it complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are documented at the field level, including the note that viewId is only UI context. The description adds only the rowIds-to-count relationship, which is marginal beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 fits.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Delete one or more records from a table') plus scope ('in a single batch call'). This cleanly separates it from the template, field, and table deletion siblings without the agent needing to open the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The 'single batch call' wording implies rowIds should be sent together rather than through repeated calls, which is a useful usage hint. However, it never states prerequisites, when to prefer this over a single-record path, or any caution about irreversibility.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools