Create a new empty Jupyter notebook in the sandboxed workspace, specifying its path and optional kernel. Use this to start a notebook for code execution or collaboration.
Create a new, empty .ipynb notebook inside the sandboxed workspace.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Notebook path, relative to the workspace root. | |
| kernel_name | No | python3 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the created notebook is new and empty, which is useful, but it does not mention behavior on existing paths, parent directory creation, or success/failure signals.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and includes the key qualifier 'empty' and the workspace constraint without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple creation tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate, but it leaves gaps: no mention of what happens if the path already exists, no clarification of how kernel_name is used, and no guidance on prerequisites. These are relevant for reliable invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 50%: the 'path' parameter is described in the schema, but 'kernel_name' has no description beyond its default value. The tool description does not compensate by explaining kernel_name or elaborating on path semantics beyond what the schema already says.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Create'), a specific resource ('a new, empty .ipynb notebook'), and a location ('inside the sandboxed workspace'). This distinguishes it from siblings like colab_get_notebook and colab_update_notebook, which operate on existing notebooks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool: when a new empty notebook needs to be created in the sandbox. However, it does not explicitly explain when not to use it or mention alternatives like colab_update_notebook for modifying an existing notebook.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.