mcp-airtable-query

Update records

update_records

Idempotent

Update Airtable records by ID, changing fields for up to ten records per call. Supports optional replace and typecast settings.

Instructions

Update up to ten records by ID.

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": {
      "baseId": "<baseId>",
      "table": "<table>",
      "records": "<records>"
    },
    "name": "update_records"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`table`	Yes
`baseId`	Yes
`records`	Yes
`replace`	No
`typecast`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes
`code`	No
`data`	No
`error`	No
`status`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, establishing that this is a non-destructive write. The description adds value by specifying the batch limit of up to ten records and the requirement to update by ID, which are useful constraints beyond the annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant information. Every word contributes to conveying the core operation.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With five parameters including two boolean flags that have nuanced behavior, the description is overly sparse. It fails to describe the semantics of replace and typecast, batch update behavior, or potential failure modes, making the tool under-specified for reliable invocation.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only provides a high-level mention of updating by ID and a max of ten records. It does not explain the required baseId, table, records structure, or the optional replace and typecast flags, leaving significant ambiguity for an agent.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description uses the specific verb 'Update' and identifies the resource as 'records', explicitly scoping to 'up to ten records by ID'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_records, delete_records, and list_records.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The context is clear: the tool is for updating existing records by ID, which implies a prerequisite that records already exist. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the purpose statement makes the appropriate use case obvious.

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

Deploy Server