Airtable MCP Server

list_exceptions

Retrieve recent exceptions and remediation proposals from Airtable, filtered by severity or date and paginated to help review and address issues.

Instructions

List recent exceptions and remediation proposals.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_exceptions"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`since`	No
`cursor`	No
`severity`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`items`	Yes
`cursor`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.2.7Nov 8, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

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 behavioral burden. It implies a read-only listing and a recent time scope, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, default or maximum limits, ordering, permissions, or whether exceptions and remediation proposals are returned together or separately.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It is concise, though its brevity contributes to gaps better assessed under contextual completeness rather than conciseness.

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 tool has four optional parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no annotations, so the description should do more to explain filtering, pagination, and usage. An output schema exists, so return-value details are less necessary, but the description remains too thin for an agent to invoke the tool confidently.

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% for four parameters, and the description does not explain limit, since, cursor, or severity. The word 'recent' loosely hints at a time filter but adds no usable meaning beyond the schema and does not compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation.

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, 'List', and names the resources, 'exceptions and remediation proposals', with a temporal scope of 'recent'. It does not differentiate the tool from sibling listing tools such as list_bases, list_webhooks, or list_governance, but the resource name makes the core purpose clear.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like query, list_governance, or describe. The term 'recent' is not defined, and there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or notes about when this tool should not be used.

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

Deploy Server