Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Jupyter MCP Server

Jupyter MCP Server

by ChengJiale150
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

execute_cell

Run a notebook cell by index with a configurable timeout to get its output.

Instructions

Execute a specific cell with a timeout. It will return the output of the cell.

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": {
      "notebook_name": "<notebook_name>",
      "cell_index": "<cell_index>"
    },
    "name": "execute_cell"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
timeoutNoseconds
cell_indexYesCell index(0-based)
notebook_nameYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It mentions timeout and output but fails to disclose behavior on timeout (e.g., error handling), whether execution is blocking, or any side effects on notebook state.

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?

Two concise sentences with clear front-loading. No verbose or redundant content; every word earns its place.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Despite simple tool, missing details on return format, error behavior, and prerequisites. No output schema exists, so description should compensate but does not.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 67%; description adds no extra explanation for 'notebook_name' and 'cell_index' beyond what schema provides. The timeout parameter is only noted as 'seconds' in schema, and description does not enrich that.

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?

Description clearly states action (execute) and resource (specific cell) with timeout and output return. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'append_execute_code_cell' or 'execute_temporary_code', which have similar purposes.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies use for executing a cell and obtaining output, but lacks when-not or prerequisite context.

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