Skip to main content
Glama
azharlabs
by azharlabs

trigger_vscode_reload

Reload a Jupyter notebook file in VS Code to apply changes made through the MCP Jupyter Server, ensuring the editor displays current content.

Instructions

Trigger VS Code to reload the notebook file

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
notebook_pathYesAbsolute path to the Jupyter notebook file

Implementation Reference

  • The core handler function that implements the tool logic by touching the notebook file's utimes to trigger a VS Code reload via file watcher.
    async triggerReload(notebookPath) {
      try {
        // Touch the file to trigger VS Code's file watcher
        const stats = await fs.stat(notebookPath);
        const now = new Date();
        await fs.utimes(notebookPath, now, now);
        
        return {
          content: [
            {
              type: "text",
              text: `Triggered VS Code reload for: ${notebookPath}`
            }
          ]
        };
      } catch (error) {
        throw new Error(`Failed to trigger reload: ${error.message}`);
      }
    }
  • The input schema definition for the tool, registered in the ListTools response.
    {
      name: "trigger_vscode_reload",
      description: "Trigger VS Code to reload the notebook file",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          notebook_path: {
            type: "string",
            description: "Absolute path to the Jupyter notebook file"
          }
        },
        required: ["notebook_path"]
      }
    }
  • src/index.js:396-397 (registration)
    The switch case registration that dispatches the tool call to the VSCodeIntegration handler.
    case "trigger_vscode_reload":
      return await this.vscodeIntegration.triggerReload(args.notebook_path);
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'trigger' implies an action that initiates something, the description doesn't specify what 'reload' entails (e.g., whether it refreshes the UI, reloads from disk, clears outputs, or requires specific permissions). It also omits details like error handling, side effects, or whether this is a read-only vs. mutating operation.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to understand quickly.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the complexity of triggering an external application action, the lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after triggering (e.g., success/failure indicators, expected behavior in VS Code, or potential errors), leaving gaps for an AI agent to understand the full context of use.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'notebook_path' clearly documented in the schema as 'Absolute path to the Jupyter notebook file'. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond this, such as path format examples or constraints, but the schema provides adequate documentation, meeting the baseline score of 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('trigger VS Code to reload') and the target resource ('the notebook file'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'read_notebook_with_outputs' or 'edit_cell_source', which might also involve notebook file operations.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether VS Code must be running), when this operation is appropriate (e.g., after external file changes), or what sibling tools might be better for related tasks (like 'read_notebook_with_outputs' for viewing content).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/azharlabs/mcp-jupyter-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server