List rows from a Coda table by providing API token, doc ID, and table ID, with optional limit control for returned results.
List rows in a Coda table.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Rows to return (max 200, default 25) | |
| doc_id | Yes | Coda doc id | |
| table_id | Yes | Coda table id or name | |
| api_token | Yes | Coda API token |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond repeating the basic listing action, such as pagination, rate limits, or auth expectations.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple list operation, though it is so terse that it provides little structure beyond the core action.
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?
For a simple read-only list tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It does not explain return shape or pagination, but no output schema exists and the essential required parameters are documented in the schema.
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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema, including the limit default and maximum. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is acceptable given the complete schema but earns only the baseline score.
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 states a specific verb and resource: "List rows in a Coda table." It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as coda_list_docs or coda_list_tables.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It simply states the operation, leaving usage entirely implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.