Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
jupyter_mcp

jupyter_mcp

by Liu-Eroteme
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

create_notebook

Create a new empty Jupyter notebook at a specified file path, ensuring the path does not already exist.

Instructions

Create a new empty notebook at path (must not exist yet).

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "create_notebook"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes
kernel_nameNopython3

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It reveals that the tool creates a new empty notebook and enforces a path uniqueness constraint. However, it does not detail return values, error handling, or side effects beyond the constraint. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with action and resource, no filler. Efficiently conveys core purpose and a critical constraint.

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?

Tool has 2 parameters, an output schema, and 14 siblings. The description covers the primary parameter and precondition, but ignores kernel_name and return value behavior. Output schema may compensate, but without seeing it, the description feels slightly incomplete for a creation 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 coverage is 0%, so description should compensate. It adds meaning for the 'path' parameter by noting the requirement that the path must not exist yet. However, the 'kernel_name' parameter is not mentioned, leaving its purpose to the schema alone. Partial coverage, baseline 3.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'create', resource 'notebook', and specifies the location via path. The constraint 'must not exist yet' adds precision and distinguishes it from update or overwrite operations. Sibling tools like add_cell or run do not create notebooks, so purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Description implicitly states when to use: to create a new notebook at a given path, and explicitly states the precondition that the path must not already exist. While it does not list alternatives, the creation action is distinct enough that an agent can infer 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