Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
universal-notebook-mcp

universal-notebook-mcp

by am-3
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

notebook_list_cells

List all cells in a notebook to see their index, type, tags, and first line. Use this to understand notebook structure before reading or editing specific cells.

Instructions

List every cell in a notebook with its index, type, tags, and first line.

Call this first to understand the structure before reading or editing specific cells.

Args: notebook_path: Path to the .ipynb file, relative to the workspace root.

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": {
      "notebook_path": "<notebook_path>"
    },
    "name": "notebook_list_cells"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
notebook_pathYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. While it implies a read-only list operation, it does not explicitly state that no side effects occur or that it is safe to call multiple times. More explicit safety disclosure would improve score.

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 short sentences plus an argument description. Front-loaded with key result details. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simple tool (one parameter) and presence of an output schema (not shown but assumed), the description sufficiently explains what is returned (index, type, tags, first line) and how to use it. No missing information.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but description adds meaning beyond schema (type string, title) by specifying 'Path to the .ipynb file, relative to the workspace root,' which clarifies format and location. Could be improved with example.

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 uses specific verb 'list every cell' and identifies the resource as a notebook, detailing what is returned (index, type, tags, first line). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that modify or read individual cells.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states 'Call this first to understand the structure before reading or editing specific cells,' providing clear when-to-use guidance and implied exclusion of direct cell manipulation.

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