Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
vish288

mcp-coda

by vish288
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Coda List Permissions

coda_list_permissions
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve ACL entries for a Coda doc to see who has access and their permission type. Use to audit or manage doc sharing.

Instructions

List all permission entries (ACL) for a Coda doc.

Returns who has access to the doc and their access level (read, write, etc.). Each entry includes the principal (user or group) and their permission type. Use coda_add_permission to grant access or coda_delete_permission to revoke.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum number of permissions to return (1-200)
cursorNoPagination cursor from a previous response
doc_idYesThe doc ID to list permissions for

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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the shape of the result: who has access, their access level (read/write), and that each entry includes a principal and permission type — useful because no output schema exists.

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?

Four short sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose and return shape front-loaded before the cross-tool routing sentence. Every sentence contributes something an agent can use.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a three-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential return content (principal, permission type, access level) and sibling routing. It stops short of describing pagination flow across cursor calls, but the schema already documents limit/cursor semantics.

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 limit, cursor and doc_id all documented inline including ranges and pagination intent, so the schema carries the load. The description adds no extra meaning about parameter behavior, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('List all permission entries (ACL) for a Coda doc') and immediately scopes what an entry contains. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling ACL tools like coda_get_acl_settings and coda_get_sharing_metadata by naming the ACL/permission-entry object explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly routes the agent to coda_add_permission for granting and coda_delete_permission for revoking, which is clear complementary-action guidance. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from other read siblings such as coda_get_sharing_metadata or coda_get_acl_settings, so no true when-not-to-use boundary is drawn.

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