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 of behavioral disclosure. It states 'update an existing row,' implying a mutation operation, but lacks details on permissions required, error handling (e.g., if the row doesn't exist), rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 ('Update an existing row in a table') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It directly conveys the core action without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 of a mutation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral nuances like partial updates. For a tool that modifies data, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage by an AI agent.

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%, with all parameters (docId, tableId, rowId, cells) well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the structure of 'cells' or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with extra insights.

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 action ('update') and resource ('existing row in a table'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'coda_create_row' (creation vs. update) and 'coda_delete_doc' (row vs. document operations). However, it doesn't specify what kind of table (e.g., Coda table) or provide additional context beyond the basic verb+resource.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing row), exclusions (e.g., not for creating rows), or comparisons to siblings like 'coda_create_row' for new rows or 'coda_list_rows' for viewing. Usage is implied from the action 'update,' but explicit context is absent.

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