Skip to main content
Glama
rspace-os

RSpace MCP Server

Official
by rspace-os

createNotebookEntry

Add experimental procedures, results, or observations to an existing research notebook with HTML or plain text formatting.

Instructions

Adds a new entry to an existing notebook

Usage: Add experimental procedures, results, or observations to a notebook Content: Supports both HTML and plain text formatting Returns: Created entry information

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesThe name of the notebook entry
text_contentYeshtml or plain text content
notebook_idYesThe id of the notebook to add the entry

Implementation Reference

  • main.py:424-438 (handler)
    The handler function that executes the tool logic by creating a new document in the specified notebook folder using the RSpace ELN client.
    def create_notebook_entry(
            name: Annotated[str, Field(description="The name of the notebook entry")],
            text_content: Annotated[str, Field(description="html or plain text content ")],
            notebook_id: Annotated[int, Field(description="The id of the notebook to add the entry")],
    ) -> Dict[str, any]:
        """
        Adds a new entry to an existing notebook
        
        Usage: Add experimental procedures, results, or observations to a notebook
        Content: Supports both HTML and plain text formatting
        Returns: Created entry information
        """
        resp = eln_cli.create_document(name, parent_folder_id=notebook_id, fields=[{'content': text_content}])
        return resp
  • main.py:423-423 (registration)
    Registers the create_notebook_entry function as the MCP tool named 'createNotebookEntry' with the 'rspace' tag.
    @mcp.tool(tags={"rspace"}, name="createNotebookEntry")
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states the tool 'Adds' (implies mutation) and 'Returns: Created entry information', but lacks critical behavioral details: permission requirements, whether entries are editable/deletable, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'Created entry information' includes. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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?

The description is well-structured with four concise bullet-like statements. Each sentence adds value: purpose, usage, content format, return info. No wasted words, though it could be more front-loaded by leading with the core purpose more prominently.

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?

Given 3 parameters with full schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, usage examples, content format, and return type, but lacks behavioral transparency for a mutation tool and doesn't fully compensate for missing output schema (what 'Created entry information' entails). Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds marginal value: 'Content: Supports both HTML and plain text formatting' clarifies 'text_content' parameter usage beyond the schema's 'html or plain text content'. However, it doesn't explain 'name' or 'notebook_id' further. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does most work.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Adds a new entry to an existing notebook' with specific verb ('Adds') and resource ('notebook entry'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'createNewNotebook' (creates notebook vs. entry) and 'add_note_to_subsample' (different resource), though not explicitly. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from 'update_document' or 'renameDocumentOrNotebookEntry' which might also modify notebook entries.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description provides implied usage context: 'Usage: Add experimental procedures, results, or observations to a notebook' gives examples of when to use it. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'add_note_to_subsample' or 'create_document_from_form', and doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., notebook must exist).

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/rspace-os/rspace-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server