Coda MCP Server

coda_get_row

Retrieve a specific row from a Coda table by providing document, table, and row identifiers. Returns cell values in rich or simple format.

Instructions

Get 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_get_row"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`docId`	Yes	The ID of the document
`tableIdOrName`	Yes	The ID or name of the table
`rowIdOrName`	Yes	The ID or name of the row
`useColumnNames`	No	Use column names instead of column IDs in the output - defaults to true
`valueFormat`	No	The format that cell values are returned as. 'rich' returns detailed objects for images, people, and references. 'simple' returns plain strings. Defaults to 'rich'.	rich

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.7.1May 4, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. The description is minimal, only stating 'Get a single row', which implies a read operation. It does not explicitly state that it is read-only or disclose any side effects, but for a simple get operation, the transparency is adequate.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise but could be slightly more informative without being verbose.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not mention what the tool returns. For a simple get operation, while the action is clear, the lack of return value information and any prerequisites or error conditions makes 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get a single row from a table' clearly specifies the action (get), resource (single row), and context (from a table). It distinguishes from sibling tools like coda_list_rows (multiple rows) and coda_update_row (modification).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., coda_list_rows for multiple rows, coda_update_row for editing). No prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or context is provided.

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