Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Feishu MCP Server

Feishu MCP Server

by shou-nian
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

list_feishu_bitable_fields

Retrieve field structure, type, options, and writability from Feishu Bitable with pagination.

Instructions

分页查询飞书多维表格字段结构、类型、选项和是否可写。

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": {
      "app_token": "<app_token>",
      "table_id": "<table_id>"
    },
    "name": "list_feishu_bitable_fields"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
table_idYesBitable table_id（数据表 ID）
app_tokenYesBitable app_token（多维表格 Token）

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Discloses pagination and returned data (structure, type, options, writability), but lacks details on pagination defaults, limits, or side effects. Since no annotations exist, description partially fulfills transparency.

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, front-loaded with action and purpose. Efficient but could be slightly more 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?

Output schema exists, so return format is covered. Description covers core functionality but lacks usage guidelines and pagination specifics. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described in Chinese. Description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, 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?

The description clearly states it is a paginated query for field structure, type, options, and writability, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list records or list dashboards.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list records or create fields. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites mentioned.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools