Coda MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the creation action and optional copying, but fails to address critical aspects like required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, error handling, or what the response includes (e.g., new document ID). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Create a new Coda document') and succinctly covers optional features. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool's complexity as a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, response format), does not explain return values, and offers minimal parameter guidance beyond the schema, leaving the agent under-informed.

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 fully documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value by noting that sourceDoc enables copying from an existing document, which slightly clarifies its purpose beyond the schema's 'ID of a document to copy from'. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb ('create') and resource ('new Coda document'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like coda_list_docs (list) and coda_delete_doc (delete), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with coda_create_row which creates a row within a document rather than a document itself.

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 implies usage through the mention of optional copying from an existing document, suggesting when this feature might be relevant. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like coda_create_row or prerequisites such as permissions or workspace context.

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