describe_feishu_baseDiscover all tables and field schemas in a Feishu Bitable, providing table IDs, field names, types, and allowed values to prepare for record reads and writes.
列出飞书多维表格（bitable）的所有数据表及每张表的字段 schema（字段名/类型/可选值），用于读写记录前发现 table_id、准确字段名和字段类型约定（如单选字段的合法选项）。base_token 支持多维表格 URL、wiki 知识库 URL 或裸 token。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| base_token | Yes | 多维表格 token 或 URL（支持 /base/、/wiki/ 链接） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It characterizes the tool as a listing/inspection operation ('列出', '查看'), which implies read-only behavior, and it documents accepted input forms. However, it does not explicitly state that it makes no modifications, mention auth prerequisites, or describe rate limits, errors, or pagination.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two purposeful sentences: the first states the action and output, the second states accepted input formats. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or redundant detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given one required parameter, full schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description gives a clear enough output picture (table_id, field names, types, options) and the supported input variants. It falls short of 5 only because it does not explicitly describe the return structure or state that the operation is read-only.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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's explanation of base_token formats ('多维表格 URL、wiki 知识库 URL 或裸 token') largely mirrors the schema's '/base/、/wiki/ 链接' wording and adds only marginal explicitness about bare tokens.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('列出'), the resource ('飞书多维表格（bitable）'), and the deliverable ('所有数据表及每张表的字段 schema'), far beyond a tautology. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like read_feishu_base_records by focusing on schema discovery rather than record read/write.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says this tool is for use '读写记录前' to discover table_id, field names, and field type conventions, which is a clear trigger condition. It does not explicitly rule out alternatives or name sibling tools, but the bitable-vs-doc/sheet distinction is strong enough to guide selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.