SeaTable MCP

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

unlink_rows

DestructiveIdempotent

Remove existing links between rows using the dedicated links endpoint. Specify the table, link column, and array of row ID pairs (from/to) to unlink. This is the only correct method to remove links.

Instructions

Remove links between rows via the dedicated links endpoint. This is the ONLY way to remove links — link columns cannot be modified via update_rows.

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>",
      "link_column": "<link_column>",
      "pairs": "<pairs>"
    },
    "name": "unlink_rows"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`table`	Yes	Source table name
`link_column`	Yes	Name of the link column
`pairs`	Yes	Array of row ID pairs to unlink

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.5.2Apr 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true (modification) and idempotentHint=true (safe to retry). The description adds context about the exclusive method for unlinking but doesn't disclose details like rate limits, side effects, or authorization requirements. However, given annotations cover the key behavioral traits, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the action and immediately provide crucial usage distinction. No wasted words.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The tool is straightforward with only three parameters, all required and fully described in the schema. The description, combined with annotations and schema, provides complete context for correct invocation. No output schema, but return value is implied (success/failure), which is adequate.

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%, and each parameter has a clear description in the schema. The description does not add further meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Remove links between rows'), the specific endpoint ('dedicated links endpoint'), and distinguishes from update_rows by noting that link columns cannot be modified via update_rows.

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 states that this is the ONLY way to remove links, contrasting with update_rows which cannot modify link columns. This gives clear guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives.

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