Downloads all notebook sources as Markdown into a local cache, enabling keyword search and grep without waiting.
Descarga todas las fuentes del notebook en Markdown a la caché local (habilita keyword_search/grep sin esperas).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| force | No | Vuelve a descargar todo aunque la caché esté vigente. | |
| notebook_id | Yes | ID del notebook (obtenlo con list_notebooks). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: it writes Markdown copies into a local cache and is a prerequisite for latency-free keyword_search/grep. It omits cache staleness/disk-usage implications, so not a 5.
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?
A single sentence with the core action front-loaded and the payoff (fast search) attached. No filler or 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?
An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not needed, and annotations cover idempotency and safety. The only gap is that the description does not touch cache freshness/force behavior, which the schema handles, leaving little missing for an agent to call 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (notebook_id and force) are already documented in the schema, establishing the baseline of 3. The description says nothing about the force/re-download behavior, adding no meaning beyond 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?
States a specific verb (descarga) and resource (todas las fuentes del notebook) plus the output form (Markdown a la caché local). It also names the siblings it enables (keyword_search/grep), so an agent can distinguish it from read_source or search_sources without opening the schema.
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 parenthetical '(habilita keyword_search/grep sin esperas)' makes the when-to-use condition explicit: call this before relying on fast local search. It does not state when NOT to use it (e.g., cache already warm, or pairing with clear_cache), which keeps it below 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.