Run a single notebook cell by its index in a Colab runtime, executing code against the active session to test or update specific parts of your notebook.
Execute a single notebook cell by index against a runtime session.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| index | Yes | ||
| session_id | No | ||
| timeout_seconds | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden, but it only states the action without disclosing any side effects, such as whether execution is synchronous, if it blocks until completion, or whether a session must already exist. It also doesn't mention if execution is destructive to the runtime state.
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 brief and to the point, with no unnecessary details. It is appropriately front-loaded with the core action, but could have included more context without being verbose.
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 tool that executes code, with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks details about prerequisites (e.g., a live runtime), error scenarios, and expected outputs. An agent would need to infer too much to invoke it correctly.
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 coverage is 0%, and the description does not elaborate on any parameter meanings beyond their names, which are mostly self-explanatory. It doesn't clarify what 'index' refers to (0-based?), what 'session_id' is for, or how 'timeout_seconds' behaves. The description adds no value over the schema.
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 states a specific verb ('execute') and resource ('a single notebook cell by index against a runtime session'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like colab_execute_code. However, 'runtime session' is not explicitly tied to a specific requirement, and the tool's scope is not fully contextualized.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as colab_execute_notebook or colab_execute_code. For instance, it doesn't mention that it's best for interactive debugging or that colab_execute_notebook is for running the entire notebook.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.