Visuals MCP Server

Display Table

display_table

Create interactive tables with sorting, filtering, pagination, column visibility, and row selection. Accepts column definitions and row data.

Instructions

Display an interactive table with sorting, filtering, pagination, column visibility, and row selection. Accepts column definitions and row data. Returns a visual table component that users can interact with.

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": {
      "columns": "<columns>",
      "rows": "<rows>"
    },
    "name": "display_table"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`columns`	Yes	Array of column definitions
`rows`	Yes	Array of row data objects
`title`	No	Optional title for the table
`allowRowSelection`	No
`allowColumnVisibility`	No
`pageSize`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.6.0Jun 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Describes features but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or whether it is read-only. Lacks explicit behavioral traits beyond the listed interactivity.

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?

Two sentences covering purpose and inputs/outputs. Efficient with no wasted words, though could structure feature list more clearly.

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?

Adequate for a display tool but lacks detail on return behavior (e.g., how interactions are handled, any callbacks). With no output schema, more explanation of component behavior would help.

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 descriptions cover 50% of parameters. Description adds little beyond listing features; does not explain parameter nuances or constraints not already in schema.

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?

Clearly states it displays an interactive table with specific features (sorting, filtering, pagination, column visibility, row selection). Distinguishes from sibling tools like display_chart or display_list by focusing on tabular data.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like query_table_data or display_master_detail. Does not mention prerequisites or conditions for use.

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

Deploy Server