Coda MCP Server

coda_list_pages

List pages from a document with pagination. Specify document ID, optional limit, and next page token to iterate through results.

Instructions

List pages in the current document with pagination

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>"
    },
    "name": "coda_list_pages"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`docId`	Yes	The ID of the document to list pages from
`limit`	No	The number of pages to return - optional, defaults to 25
`nextPageToken`	No	The token need to get the next page of results, returned from a previous call to this tool - optional

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.7.1May 4, 2026
- removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
- addedInput schema / properties / limit / maximum
```
Added value: +9007199254740991
```
First observedv1.0.0Aug 14, 2025

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what fields are returned, or any side effects. It only mentions pagination, which is minimal.

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 short sentence with no filler words. It's appropriately concise, though it sacrifices informative content.

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 output schema and sparse descriptions, the tool description fails to explain what page data is returned (e.g., titles, IDs, hierarchy). It also doesn't clarify pagination behavior beyond a token. An agent would lack sufficient context to predict the output or handle errors.

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 already documents all three parameters (docId, limit, nextPageToken) with coverage at 100%. The description adds 'with pagination' which reinforces the limit/nextPageToken usage but adds no new semantic detail.

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 indicates the action (list) and resource (pages), but refers to 'current document' despite the required docId parameter, creating slight ambiguity. It distinguishes from sibling tools like coda_list_documents by specifying pages.

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 vs alternatives like coda_list_documents or coda_get_page_content. The description lacks any 'use this when...' or 'instead of...' language.

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