Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Jupyter MCP Server

Jupyter MCP Server

by ChengJiale150
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

overwrite_cell

Overwrite the content of a Jupyter notebook cell and get a diff comparison of the changes.

Instructions

Overwrite the content of a specific cell It will return a comparison (diff style, + for new lines, - for deleted lines) of the cell's content.

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>",
      "cell_content": "<cell_content>"
    },
    "name": "overwrite_cell"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cell_indexYesCell index(0-based)
cell_contentYes
notebook_nameYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description partly compensates by disclosing the diff return format, but lacks details on error scenarios, side effects, or the tool's destructive nature.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action; concise and to the point, though the second sentence could be integrated for even tighter structure.

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?

The description covers the basic action and return format, but omits prerequisites (cell must exist), error handling, and does not leverage the output schema for further completeness.

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?

The description mentions notebook_name and cell_index in passing but adds no semantic detail beyond the input schema; schema coverage is low (33%), and the description does not compensate adequately.

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 overwrites cell content and returns a diff, but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like insert_cell or delete_cell, leaving some ambiguity for selection.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., insert_cell, execute_cell) is provided; the description only states the action without usage 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