Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
vish288

mcp-coda

by vish288
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Coda Delete Row

coda_delete_row
Destructive

Delete a single row from a Coda table by doc ID, table ID or name, and row ID or name. Use to permanently remove one row; verify first, and use bulk deletion for multiple rows.

Instructions

Delete a single row from a Coda table.

Permanently removes the row. This is irreversible. Verify the row with coda_get_row before deleting. For bulk deletion, use coda_delete_rows with a list of row IDs instead.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
doc_idYesThe doc ID containing the table
row_id_or_nameYesRow ID or name to delete
table_id_or_nameYesTable ID or name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.12.1
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "properties": {
-    "result": {
-      "type": "string"
-    }
-  },
-  "required": [
-    "result"
-  ],
-  "type": "object",
-  "x-fastmcp-wrap-result": true
-}New value: +null
  2. First observedv0.4.14

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is partly structured. The description still adds real behavioral value by spelling out that removal is permanent and irreversible, plus the recommended verify-before-delete workflow. It stops short of noting auth/permission requirements or what happens to row references, which keeps it from a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, then consequence, then the safety workflow and escape hatch to the bulk sibling. No padding or repetition.

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?

For a destructive single-row delete with fully documented params and annotation coverage, the description closes the important gaps: irreversibility, verification prerequisite, and the bulk alternative. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely is missing, and no output schema is expected for a delete.

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% with all three required parameters documented (doc_id, table_id_or_name, row_id_or_name), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, format, or name-vs-ID nuance beyond what the schema already states.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a single row from a Coda table') and explicitly scopes it to ONE row, which is exactly what distinguishes it from the sibling coda_delete_rows. An agent can pick between the two without opening either schema.

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?

Names the alternative explicitly ('For bulk deletion, use coda_delete_rows with a list of row IDs instead') and adds a pre-flight verification step with coda_get_row. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered with concrete conditions.

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