airtable-user-mcp

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the safety guard requiring both tableId and expectedName, refusal behavior if names don't match, and the constraint that Airtable rejects deleting the last table. Annotations cover destructive and non-idempotent aspects, but the description enriches this with practical implementation details.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by critical safety and constraint details in subsequent sentences. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete: it explains the action, safety mechanisms, and key constraints. It could slightly improve by mentioning error handling or response format, but given the annotations and schema coverage, it provides sufficient context for effective use.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters well. The description mentions the safety guard involving 'expectedName' but does not add substantial meaning beyond what the schema provides for other parameters like 'appId' or 'debug'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the specific action ('Delete a table from an Airtable base') and distinguishes it from siblings like 'rename_table' or 'delete_view' by specifying it removes the table entirely. It goes beyond just restating the name by explaining the safety mechanism and constraints.

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 provides clear context for when to use it (deleting a table with safety checks) and implicitly distinguishes from alternatives like 'rename_table' or 'delete_view' by focusing on table deletion. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives, keeping it at a 4.

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