List code, SQL, and markdown cells from a project's draft version to audit or manage notebook contents. Provide the project UUID; optionally paginate with after and limit.
List cells (code, SQL, markdown) from the draft version of a project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| after | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| projectId | Yes | The project UUID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. Beyond 'draft version', it discloses nothing about ordering, pagination, result caps, or auth requirements. For an unannotated list endpoint this is a significant gap.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the scope qualifier ('draft version') is placed where it matters. Brevity here edges toward under-specification rather than waste, so 4 rather than 5.
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?
With three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition should at minimum explain pagination via 'after'/'limit'. As written, an agent cannot paginate correctly or predict the result shape.
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 33%: only projectId is documented. The 'after' and 'limit' parameters are undocumented in both schema and description, and the description never mentions pagination — exactly the compensation expected when coverage is low.
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?
States a clear verb+resource (list cells) plus the content types and the scope qualifier 'draft version of a project', which meaningfully distinguishes it from hex-get-cell, hex-create-cell, and hex-delete-cell. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.
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 on when to prefer this over hex-get-cell (single cell) or hex-list-projects, and no note on prerequisites such as needing a valid projectId or draft state. Usage must be inferred from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.