Skip to main content
Glama
andrewlwn77
by andrewlwn77

delete_table

Remove a table from a NocoDB database by specifying its table ID to manage database structure and clean up unused data.

Instructions

Delete a table from the database

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
table_idYesThe ID of the table to delete

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function that implements the delete_table tool logic by invoking the NocoDB client's deleteTable method and returning a success message.
    handler: async (client: NocoDBClient, args: { table_id: string }) => {
      await client.deleteTable(args.table_id);
      return {
        message: "Table deleted successfully",
        table_id: args.table_id,
      };
    },
  • The input schema defining the required table_id parameter for the delete_table tool.
    inputSchema: {
      type: "object",
      properties: {
        table_id: {
          type: "string",
          description: "The ID of the table to delete",
        },
      },
      required: ["table_id"],
    },
  • src/index.ts:55-62 (registration)
    Registration of tableTools (which includes delete_table) into the allTools array, used for listing and calling tools in MCP server handlers.
    const allTools = [
      ...databaseTools,
      ...tableTools,
      ...recordTools,
      ...viewTools,
      ...queryTools,
      ...attachmentTools,
    ];
  • NocoDBClient helper method that executes the HTTP DELETE request to the NocoDB API endpoint for deleting a table.
    async deleteTable(tableId: string): Promise<void> {
      await this.client.delete(`/api/v1/db/meta/tables/${tableId}`);
    }
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool deletes a table, implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, affects related data (e.g., cascading to records), or returns confirmation. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral risks (e.g., irreversibility), permissions, side effects, or response format, which are crucial for safe invocation. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall context is inadequate for a mutation tool.

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%, with the single parameter 'table_id' fully documented in the schema as 'The ID of the table to delete'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or sourcing hints, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a table from the database'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_column' or 'delete_record', which would require mentioning it removes entire tables rather than columns or individual records.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 table ID), exclusions (e.g., cannot delete if referenced by views), or compare to siblings like 'delete_record' (for rows) or 'delete_column' (for columns), leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/andrewlwn77/nocodb-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server