Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Coda MCP Server

Coda MCP Server

by orellazri
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

coda_delete_row

Delete a specific row from a table in a Coda document by providing the document ID, table identifier, and row identifier.

Instructions

Delete a single row from a table

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": {
      "docId": "<docId>",
      "tableIdOrName": "<tableIdOrName>",
      "rowIdOrName": "<rowIdOrName>"
    },
    "name": "coda_delete_row"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
docIdYesThe ID of the document
tableIdOrNameYesThe ID or name of the table
rowIdOrNameYesThe ID or name of the row to delete

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.7.1

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The description only states the action (delete) without disclosing any behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, or reversibility. With no annotations provided, the description fails to add value beyond the basic action.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient but somewhat underspecified; however, it is concise for a simple deletion operation, earning a 4.

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 is simple but lacks details about what happens upon deletion (e.g., permanence, return value). There is no output schema, and the description does not cover prerequisites or results, making it incomplete.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter documented. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 that the tool deletes a single row from a table, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'coda_delete_rows' (plural) by specifying 'single row', making the purpose unambiguous.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'coda_delete_rows'. The agent would need to infer from the name and the word 'single' in the description, but there is no explicit instruction or context about batch deletion.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools