Airtable MCP Server

describe

Inspect an Airtable base or table schema to retrieve fields, views, and structure for validation, documentation, or integration planning.

Instructions

Describe Airtable base or table schema.

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": {
      "scope": "<scope>",
      "baseId": "<baseId>"
    },
    "name": "describe"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`scope`	Yes
`table`	No
`baseId`	Yes
`includeViews`	No
`includeFields`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`base`	Yes
`views`	No
`tables`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.2.7Nov 8, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers almost nothing beyond the one-line purpose. It does not state that the operation is read-only, what authentication or permissions are needed, or how the schema is returned; the presence of an output schema covers return values, but the remaining behavioral gaps are significant for a 5-parameter tool.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, which is structurally sound. However, it is concise to the point of under-specification for a tool with five parameters and no annotation coverage.

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?

The output schema relieves the description of explaining return values, but that is the only mitigating factor. With 0% parameter coverage, no annotations, and an enum scope parameter whose table/base relationship is unstated, the definition leaves too much for the agent to infer before a correct call.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and it does not. Only the base/table distinction is loosely echoed, while baseId, the scope enum values, and especially includeViews and includeFields are entirely unexplained — an agent cannot tell what the two boolean flags do or their defaults from prose.

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 uses a specific verb plus resource: 'Describe Airtable base or table schema,' which makes the read-only schema-inspection intent clear and separates it from siblings like query, create, update, and list_bases. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so it does not fully earn a 5.

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 implied use case is discovering the schema before querying or writing, but the description never states when to call this versus list_bases or query. There are no prerequisites, no exclusions, and no mention of when 'base' scope should be preferred over 'table' scope.

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

Deploy Server