SeaTable MCP

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

add_row

Insert a single row into a specified table. For link and file/image columns, use the dedicated tools link_rows and upload_file instead. Use append_rows for multiple rows to avoid performance issues.

Instructions

Add a single row. For multiple rows, always use append_rows instead of calling add_row in a loop. Link and file/image columns cannot be set here — use link_rows and upload_file instead.

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": {
      "table": "<table>",
      "row": "<row>"
    },
    "name": "add_row"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`table`	Yes	Target table name
`row`	Yes	Row object (column -> value)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.5.2Apr 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Discloses that link and file/image columns cannot be set, which is behavioral beyond annotations. Annotations show readOnlyHint=false (mutation) and destructiveHint=false (not destructive), so no contradiction. Could mention other constraints like required permissions or response behavior, but given annotations, it's adequate.

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?

Three sentences, each adding value: purpose, usage guideline, and constraints. No fluff, well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, description could mention return value (e.g., the new row ID). However, the tool is simple with 2 params and good annotations, so completeness is adequate for a basic add operation.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond schema for 'table' and 'row' parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Clearly states it adds a single row and distinguishes from append_rows for bulk operations. However, it could be more specific about the resource (e.g., 'Add a single row to a table').

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly advises against using this in a loop for multiple rows, directing to append_rows instead. Also clarifies that link and file/image columns cannot be set via this tool, directing to link_rows and upload_file. Provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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