Coda MCP Server

coda_delete_rows

Delete multiple rows from a Coda table by specifying the document ID, table ID or name, and a JSON list of row IDs.

Instructions

Delete multiple rows 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>",
      "rowIds": "<rowIds>"
    },
    "name": "coda_delete_rows"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`docId`	Yes	The ID of the document
`tableIdOrName`	Yes	The ID or name of the table
`rowIds`	Yes	JSON string of row IDs to delete, e.g. ["i-row1", "i-row2"]

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.7.1May 4, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description is minimal and does not disclose whether the operation is irreversible, requires permissions, or has any rate limits or constraints on batch size. With no annotations, this is a significant gap for a deletion tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence, front-loaded, no wasted words. Highly concise.

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 description is too brief for a delete operation. It does not explain consequences (irreversibility), error handling (missing rows), or return value. Sibling context suggests more detail is needed.

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% coverage with descriptions. The description adds useful formatting context for rowIds (JSON string example), but otherwise does not add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (delete) and resource (multiple rows from a table). However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tool coda_delete_row which deletes a single row.

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 the sibling coda_delete_row or when it is appropriate to delete multiple rows. The description lacks context about prerequisites or limitations.

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