Coda MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions optional fuzzy search and URL context inference, adding some behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or the return format (e.g., pagination, structure), which are important for a tool with 8 parameters.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality and key optional features (fuzzy search, URL context). It is front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids unnecessary details, making it highly concise.

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 complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and search context but lacks information on behavioral aspects like authentication, output format, or error conditions, which are needed for effective tool 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 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by hinting at fuzzy search and URL context, but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema descriptions cover, such as how 'query' interacts with other parameters.

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 ('List') and resource ('tables in a Coda document'), making the purpose specific. It distinguishes from siblings like coda_list_docs (lists documents) and coda_list_rows (lists rows within tables) by focusing on tables within a document.

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 usage with 'optional fuzzy search by table name/page name or Coda URL context', indicating when to use this tool for searching. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as coda_get_table for retrieving a specific table.

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