Jupyter MCP Server

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation, which the description doesn't contradict. The description adds context by specifying the scope ('notebooks that have been used via use_notebook tool'), which is useful behavioral information beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose other traits like rate limits, pagination, or return format, so it's adequate but not comprehensive.

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 a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and scope without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the main action and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, read-only annotation, and an output schema exists), the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the scope of notebooks listed, which adds value beyond structured fields. However, it could slightly improve by hinting at the output format or usage context, but the presence of an output schema reduces this need.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it appropriately doesn't mention any, earning a high baseline score for not introducing confusion or redundancy.

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 action ('List all notebooks') and specifies a scope ('that have been used via use_notebook tool'), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_files' or 'read_notebook', which could have overlapping functionality, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 implies usage by referencing the 'use_notebook' tool, suggesting it's for notebooks that have been previously accessed. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_files' or 'read_notebook', nor does it specify exclusions or prerequisites, leaving some ambiguity.

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