SeaTable MCP

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

delete_rows

DestructiveIdempotent

Remove multiple rows from a SeaTable table by providing their row IDs. Specify the target table and a list of up to 100 row IDs to permanently delete the corresponding rows.

Instructions

Delete one or more rows from a table by their IDs.

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_ids": "<row_ids>"
    },
    "name": "delete_rows"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`table`	Yes	Target table name
`row_ids`	Yes	List of row IDs (_id field) to delete

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.5.2Apr 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide key behavioral transparency: `destructiveHint: true` warns that this tool destroys data, `idempotentHint: true` indicates repeated calls safe, `readOnlyHint: false` confirms mutation. The description adds no extra context beyond the deletion action, but annotations already carry the burden. No contradiction with annotations; the description aligns with them.

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?

A single, clear sentence front-loads the action and resource. No wasted words; every part is essential. Ideal conciseness.

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 the tool has 2 required params with full schema coverage, annotations disclosing destructive nature and idempotency, and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not explain the return value (e.g., count deleted, if any) or behavior on non-existent IDs. Sibling tools like 'update_rows' might offer softer alternatives, but not mentioned.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description reiterates 'by their IDs' which maps to row_ids, but adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate; no extra value but no deficiency.

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 states the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'rows from a table', with the qualification 'by their IDs'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'update_rows' or 'link_rows'. However, it does not explicitly clarify the scope (e.g., within a single table or workspace) or contrast with 'clear_rows' if such existed.

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 provides minimal guidance on when to use this tool. It implies it should be used to delete specific rows by ID, but does not mention when not to use it (e.g., for bulk deletion, use 'append_rows'? Actually not suitable) or alternatives among siblings (e.g., 'update_rows' for soft deletion). No context on prerequisites (e.g., table must exist) or post-conditions.

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