Generate a local .ipynb notebook in the working directory from specified code and Markdown cells, optionally overwriting an existing file.
Create a local .ipynb inside the working directory. cells: list of {"type": "code"|"markdown", "source": "..."}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| cells | No | ||
| overwrite | 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 behavioral burden, and it omits the most consequential trait: what happens when the target file already exists and how the overwrite flag changes that. Nothing is said about permissions, failure modes, or whether the file is written immediately, leaving an agent blind on the destructive path.
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?
Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence exists only to document the least obvious parameter and earns its place.
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 cells format is covered. However, for a file-creating mutation with no annotations, the description should state the existing-file behavior and overwrite semantics; the working-directory path convention also stays implicit.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does document the cells payload shape in useful detail (list of objects with type code|markdown and source), which the schema leaves as a bare generic object, but it says nothing about path format (relative vs absolute) or the overwrite flag, so two of three parameters remain undocumented.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Create a local .ipynb") plus the scope ("inside the working directory"), which separates it cleanly from siblings like colab_notebook_read or colab_upload. It never names an alternative tool or clarifies the local-vs-remote distinction relative to colab_upload, so full sibling differentiation is missing.
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 when-to-use guidance: nothing says when to create a notebook here versus uploading one (colab_upload) or starting a fresh runtime (colab_new). The "local working directory" phrasing implies context but states no conditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.