Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
jupyter_mcp

jupyter_mcp

by Liu-Eroteme
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

interrupt

Interrupt a running Jupyter cell and cancel queued cells while preserving kernel state. Interrupted cells become stale until re-executed.

Instructions

Interrupt the currently running cell (KeyboardInterrupt in the kernel) and cancel queued cells. Kernel state (variables) survives; interrupted cells read as stale until a successful re-run.

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": "interrupt"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes
clear_queueNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: kernel state survives and interrupted cells become stale. However, it does not mention permissions, side effects, or rate limits.

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 sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with the main action. Every word adds value.

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 the output schema exists, return values are covered, but the description lacks parameter explanations. It adequately describes the tool's core functionality but misses details needed for proper invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description should explain parameters. It does not mention 'path' or 'clear_queue' at all, leaving their purpose unclear despite somewhat self-explanatory names.

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?

The description clearly states the tool interrupts the currently running cell and cancels queued cells, which is a specific action. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'run' and 'restart_kernel' by mentioning kernel state survival.

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 implies usage for interrupting a running cell and contrasts with restart_kernel by noting that kernel state survives, but it does not explicitly compare with other siblings or state when to use this tool over alternatives.

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