Databar MCP Server

Official

by databar-ai

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Remote

patch_rows

Update specific fields in existing rows using their row IDs. Supports up to 100 rows per request.

Instructions

Update specific fields on existing rows by row ID (max 100 per request).

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": {
      "table_uuid": "<table_uuid>",
      "rows": "<rows>"
    },
    "name": "patch_rows"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`table_uuid`	Yes	The UUID of the table
`rows`	Yes	Array of patch operations (max 100)
`overwrite`	No	Overwrite non-empty cells (default: true)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.4.0May 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It reveals the max 100 request limit, but does not mention the effect of the overwrite parameter (default true), idempotency, auth needs, return behavior, or partial failure handling. More detail would be beneficial.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single sentence that is front-loaded with purpose and includes a critical constraint. However, it could be more structured or broken into bullet points for clarity, but it is efficient and easy to parse.

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

Completeness3/5

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

No output schema exists, and the description does not hint at return values, error handling, or partial success behavior. For a tool that modifies data, this lacks completeness. The constraint on max rows is good, but more context on outcomes is needed.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds only the 'max 100 per request' constraint, which is already implied by maxItems in the schema. No additional semantic guidance beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly states the action (update), the resource (existing rows), and the method (by row ID). It also includes a key constraint (max 100 per request), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like upsert_rows or create_rows.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies use for updating existing rows, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like upsert_rows (which handles insert-or-update) or create_rows (new rows). No when-not-to-use or prerequisites are mentioned.

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