Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
vish288

mcp-coda

by vish288
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Coda List Tables

coda_list_tables
Read-onlyIdempotent

List tables and views in a Coda doc to retrieve names, IDs, types, and row counts, so you can inspect document structure before fetching rows or columns.

Instructions

List all tables and views in a Coda doc.

Returns table metadata including name, ID, type (table or view), row count, and parent page. Does NOT return row data — use coda_list_rows for that. Use coda_list_columns to get the column schema of a specific table.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum number of tables to return (1-200)
cursorNoPagination cursor from a previous response
doc_idYesThe doc ID to list tables from
table_typesNoFilter by type: 'table' for base tables, 'view' for views

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the exact metadata returned (name, ID, type, row count, parent page) and the explicit exclusion of row data. It does not describe pagination behavior despite limit/cursor parameters, which is the only real gap.

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 core action, then the return shape, then the negative scope and alternatives. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields and clarifies the read-scope boundary, which is the main thing an agent needs. Pagination semantics (limit 1-200, cursor chaining) are left entirely to the schema, so it is not quite complete for a paginated list tool.

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%, so doc_id, limit, cursor, and table_types are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning (e.g., it never mentions filtering by table_types or paging with cursor), so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List all tables and views in a Coda doc") and immediately scopes it against siblings by declaring it does not return row data and pointing to coda_list_rows and coda_list_columns. An agent can distinguish this from coda_list_rows, coda_get_table, and coda_list_columns without opening a 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?

Explicitly names the alternative tools and the condition that selects them: use coda_list_rows for row data, use coda_list_columns for a specific table's schema. This is genuine when/when-not routing rather than implied usage.

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