Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Coda MCP Server

Coda MCP Server

by orellazri
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

coda_resolve_link

Takes a Coda object URL and returns its metadata, including type and identifier.

Instructions

Resolve metadata given a browser link to a Coda object

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": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "coda_resolve_link"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe URL to resolve

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.7.1
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'resolve metadata' without mentioning read-only guarantees, authentication needs, error handling, or what the returned metadata includes. This is a significant gap for an API 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant information. Every word contributes to the core purpose.

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?

Despite the tool's low complexity, the description is incomplete because it omits details about the returned metadata and has no output schema to compensate. An agent cannot reliably know whether this tool returns the needed information without additional context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description merely says 'The URL to resolve', while the tool description adds 'browser link to a Coda object', clarifying the expected URL type. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, though it stops short of specifying format or constraints.

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 verb 'resolve' and resource 'metadata given a browser link to a Coda object' clearly specify the action and scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that list or get content by focusing on resolving a link to metadata.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or situations where this tool is preferred.

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