Jupyter MCP Server

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint=true, indicating mutation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies execution with timeout, returns outputs, operates on the 'currently activated notebook', and clarifies it's a shortcut combining two operations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core operation and key features (timeout, outputs), the second provides usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or wasted words.

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 the tool's moderate complexity, annotations (destructiveHint), 100% schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage context, behavioral traits, and distinguishes from siblings without needing to explain return values (handled by output schema).

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 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters. The description adds minimal semantic context beyond schema (e.g., 'at specified index', 'with timeout'), but doesn't provide additional meaning like parameter interactions or edge cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('insert a cell', 'execute it') and resource ('currently activated notebook'), distinguishing it from siblings like insert_cell and execute_cell by combining both operations. It explicitly mentions the shortcut nature and recommended use case.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('recommended to use if you want to insert a cell and execute it at the same time') and distinguishes it from alternatives by naming the sibling tools insert_cell and execute_cell, making it clear this is a combined shortcut.

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