SeaTable MCP

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

append_rows

Add multiple rows to a SeaTable table to insert data. Provide table name and row objects with column names and values. Unknown columns are ignored; link and file columns require separate tools. Accepts up to 100 rows per call.

Instructions

Batch insert rows. Rejects unknown columns. Link and file/image columns cannot be set here — use link_rows and upload_file instead. Note: the response may contain column keys instead of column names due to a SeaTable API limitation.

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>",
      "rows": "<rows>"
    },
    "name": "append_rows"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`table`	Yes	Target table name
`rows`	Yes	Array of row objects (column name -> value)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.5.2Apr 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Discloses two important behaviors: rejects unknown columns, and response may use column keys instead of names due to API limitation. Annotations are all false (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent, not open-world), which matches the description's write operation. No contradictions.

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 short, front-loaded sentences. Each provides distinct value: purpose, constraints, and caveat. No wasted words.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given no output schema, the description covers key behaviors (rejection, limitations) and column key note compensates. Could mention max batch size (from schema: 100 rows) or idempotency, but not critical.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but description adds context: 'rejects unknown columns' clarifies validation behavior, and 'column name → value' hints at the format of row objects. The note about column keys further aids correct interpretation of return values.

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?

Clearly states 'Batch insert rows' with a specific verb and resource. Differentiates from siblings like 'add_row' (single row) and 'upsert_rows' (insert-or-update).

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly tells when not to use: cannot set link/file/image columns, directing to alternatives 'link_rows' and 'upload_file'. Implicitly distinguishes from 'add_row' for batches, but no explicit when-not for other siblings like 'update_rows'.

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