Podio MCP Server

List Views

podio_list_views

Lists all saved views for a Podio app, returning view IDs, names, and item counts. Use these IDs to filter items by saved view criteria.

Instructions

Lists all saved views for a Podio app. Returns view IDs, names, and item counts. Use view IDs with podio_filter_items_by_view to filter items using a saved view's criteria.

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": {
      "app_id": "<app_id>"
    },
    "name": "podio_list_views"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`app_id`	Yes	App ID to list views for
`include_standard_views`	No	Include built-in views like 'All items' (default: true)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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 usefully discloses the return payload (view IDs, names, item counts), but says nothing about pagination, permission requirements, or whether standard views differ structurally from custom ones. Adequate but with clear gaps for a read-only listing tool.

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?

Three short sentences: what it does, what it returns, and how to use the result. Front-loaded and every sentence earns its place with no repetition.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and the two-parameter schema is fully covered. The only minor gap is not mentioning that standard views can be excluded by default behavior, though the schema already documents that.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both app_id and include_standard_views are already documented with their purposes and default. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline of 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Lists all saved views for a Podio app") and goes further to name the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It also distinguishes itself from the downstream sibling by naming podio_filter_items_by_view as the consumer of its output.

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 description gives a clear downstream recipe: take the view IDs and pass them to podio_filter_items_by_view. It does not state when to prefer this over podio_filter_items or podio_search_app, but the intended role in the workflow is unambiguous.

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