Create a Google Colab runtime with CPU, GPU, or TPU for notebooks; stop it to halt compute-unit use. High-memory runtime requires Colab Pro.
Create a runtime. CPU by default; gpu: T4, L4, G4, H100 or A100; tpu: v5e1 or v6e1; high_mem needs Colab Pro. Consumes compute units until stopped.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| gpu | No | ||
| tpu | No | ||
| session | No | ||
| high_mem | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose important behavior—'Consumes compute units until stopped'—which is genuinely useful cost/lifecycle context, plus the Colab Pro requirement for high_mem. Gaps remain: it does not say whether an existing runtime is reused, permission requirements, or what 'stopped' lifecycle entails.
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 dense sentence that is front-loaded with the core action ('Create a runtime') followed by clause-by-clause parameter and constraint details. Every clause carries information; no filler.
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 values need not be explained, and the description covers most parameter options plus cost behavior. But the 'session' parameter is unexplained and there is no guidance on runtime lifecycle or its relationship to siblings, leaving a mutation tool with zero annotations somewhat under-specified.
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%, so the description must compensate, and it does so well for three of four params by enumerating gpu (T4, L4, G4, H100, A100), tpu (v5e1, v6e1), and the high_mem Pro requirement. The 'session' parameter is never mentioned, leaving one of four params undocumented in both schema and description.
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 opens with a specific verb+resource, 'Create a runtime,' which clearly identifies the action and cannot be confused with siblings like colab_stop or colab_sessions. However, it does not name or distinguish itself from the closest alternative, colab_ensure_session, so an agent must infer the boundary. Clear purpose but no explicit sibling differentiation.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. The closest thing to context is 'high_mem needs Colab Pro,' which is a prerequisite rather than a routing rule. An agent gets no help deciding between colab_new and colab_ensure_session.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.