Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AppFlowy Cloud MCP Server

AppFlowy Cloud MCP Server

by Jemo69
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

appflowy_get_row_details

Retrieve specific row details from AppFlowy Cloud databases using workspace, database, and row identifiers to access structured data.

Instructions

Get details of specific rows by IDs.

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": {
      "workspace_id": "<workspace_id>",
      "database_id": "<database_id>",
      "row_ids": "<row_ids>"
    },
    "name": "appflowy_get_row_details"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
workspace_idYes
database_idYes
row_idsYes
with_docNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It fails to explain behavior such as error handling, permission requirements, or the effect of the 'with_doc' parameter. The agent cannot anticipate side effects or constraints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely short, which sacrifices necessary information. While concise in word count, it is under-specified and does not earn its place by providing adequate guidance.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is severely inadequate. It fails to cover essential context like return structure, parameter formats, or use cases.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, and the description provides no parameter explanations. Even the key parameter 'row_ids' is only implicitly mentioned. 'workspace_id', 'database_id', and 'with_doc' are not described at all.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the verb 'Get details' and resource 'rows' with a specific criterion 'by IDs', which clearly differentiates from sibling tools like appflowy_list_rows or appflowy_get_updated_rows. However, it does not elaborate on what 'details' include.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No usage guidelines provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or fallback strategies.

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