Coda MCP Server

coda_list_columns

Lists all columns in a specified Coda table. Returns column names and metadata, with optional pagination for large tables.

Instructions

List columns in 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>"
    },
    "name": "coda_list_columns"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`docId`	Yes	The ID of the document
`tableIdOrName`	Yes	The ID or name of the table
`limit`	No	The number of columns to return - optional
`nextPageToken`	No	The token needed to get the next page of results, returned from a previous call to this tool - optional

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.7.1May 4, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning pagination, read-only nature, or any side effects. The schema hints at nextPageToken for pagination, but the description does not elaborate, leaving key behavior undisclosed.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified, essentially restating the tool name. It lacks useful context or guidance that would justify its brevity.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description should compensate by explaining pagination, limits, or return behavior. It fails to do so, making the tool less complete for an agent that must rely solely on this description.

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% for all four parameters, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for full coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('columns in a table'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that list documents, pages, tables, or rows. It is unambiguous and directly states the tool's function.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage through the resource name, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like coda_list_rows or coda_list_tables. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusion contexts, so guidance is only implicit.

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