Airtable OAuth MCP Server

get_record

Retrieve a single record from an Airtable base by specifying the base, table, and record ID.

Instructions

Get a specific record by ID

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": {
      "base_id": "<base_id>",
      "table_id": "<table_id>",
      "record_id": "<record_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_record"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`base_id`	Yes	The Airtable base ID
`table_id`	Yes	The table ID or name
`record_id`	Yes	The record ID

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 21, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. While 'Get' implies a read operation, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, non-destructive, or what happens if the record is missing. More detail is needed.

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 exceptionally concise at one sentence with no wasted words. However, it could benefit from slightly more structured detail, such as mentioning the expected output or context, but it remains efficient.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, full parameter coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it omits any mention of prerequisites, error cases, or typical use context, leaving some gaps.

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?

All three parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description's job is minimal. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, resulting in a baseline score.

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 ('Get'), the resource ('a specific record'), and the method ('by ID'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like create_record or list_records, making it easy for an AI agent to understand the tool's core function.

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 lacks context about prerequisites, when not to use it, or suggestions to consider sibling tools for different operations like searching or updating.

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

Deploy Server