Jupyter MCP Server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral context by specifying 'recursively' and mentioning exploration/finding use cases, which goes beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose additional traits like performance implications of recursion, error handling for invalid paths, or pagination behavior (though output schema may cover returns).

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that directly address purpose and usage. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. However, the second sentence could be slightly more efficient by combining ideas (e.g., 'for exploring structure or finding files'), but overall it avoids waste.

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 (5 parameters, recursive listing), annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint), schema fully documents inputs, and an output schema exists (implying returns are defined elsewhere). The description provides adequate context for a read-only exploration tool, though it could benefit from more explicit behavioral details like recursion limits or error cases.

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%, with all 5 parameters well-documented in the schema (e.g., path, max_depth, pattern). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. According to guidelines, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even without param details in the description.

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 'List all files and directories recursively' and specifies the resource as 'Jupyter server's file system.' It distinguishes from sibling tools (which are notebook/cell operations) by focusing on file system exploration. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from hypothetical file-listing alternatives within the same domain.

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 implied usage context with 'Used to explore the file system structure... or to find specific files or directories,' which gives general guidance. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use instructions, prerequisites, or named alternatives for similar operations (e.g., non-recursive listing).

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