Create an interactive session for a Kaggle kernel using the owner's username and kernel slug. Start a live environment to run and test code.
Create an interactive kernel session.
Args:
user_name: Kernel owner username.
kernel_slug: Kernel slug name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_name | Yes | ||
| kernel_slug | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only says 'Create an interactive kernel session,' with no information about side effects, idempotency, authentication needs, or what happens if a session already exists.
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 very concise with a clear one-line purpose, but the parameter descriptions slightly repeat the tool name. No wasted words, though integrating parameters into a narrative could improve structure.
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?
Given that an output schema exists, return values don't need explanation. However, the description lacks context about what an interactive kernel session entails, when to create one, or any usage scenario. This is incomplete for the tool's complexity.
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. It adds minimal meaning: 'Kernel owner username' clarifies the role of user_name, but kernel_slug is just restated. This barely adds value beyond the schema titles.
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 clearly states 'Create an interactive kernel session,' which specifies the verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like kernel_session_cancel or kernel_session_status, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like kernel_push or kernel_pull. No prerequisites or context for invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.