SeaTable MCP

Official

by seatable

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Hybrid

search_rows

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search rows in a specific table by applying a filter object with column name-value pairs to retrieve matching records.

Instructions

Search rows with a filter 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": {
      "table": "<table>",
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_rows"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`table`	Yes	Target table name
`query`	Yes	Filter object with column name -> value pairs

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.5.2Apr 23, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, indicating no side effects. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond that, but does not disclose limits on result size, pagination, or performance implications.

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?

Single sentence, no wasted words. It is concise but slightly under-specified for a tool that could benefit from more details about filter structure.

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 complexity (nested objects in query parameter), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain how to construct a filter object, e.g., support for comparison operators, logical operators, or nesting. With no output schema, it also doesn't describe the return format. However, schema descriptions partially compensate.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions: 'table' is target table name, 'query' is filter object with column-value pairs. The description reiterates 'filter object' but does not add new semantic details. However, the schema is clear enough that the tool is functional without augmentation.

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 'Search rows with a filter object' clearly indicates the tool's purpose: searching rows using a filter. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_rows' (which lists all rows) and 'find_rows' (which might use different criteria). However, it could be more specific about what kind of filtering is supported.

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 alternatives like 'list_rows', 'find_rows', or 'query_sql'. It doesn't mention that it is read-only (as indicated by annotations) or when it should be preferred over other search methods.

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