Jupyter MCP Server

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, indicating a potentially disruptive operation. The description adds context by specifying that resources are released, which clarifies the destructive nature beyond just 'unuse'. However, it doesn't detail side effects like whether this stops execution or affects other users, leaving room for improvement.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and outcome with zero waste. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 has a destructive annotation, one parameter with full schema coverage, and an output schema (which reduces need to explain returns), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the core action but lacks details on when to use it or potential impacts, making it complete enough for basic use but not robust.

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 the parameter 'notebook_name' well-documented as 'Notebook identifier to disconnect'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating for gaps.

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 ('unuse from a specific notebook') and the outcome ('release its resources'), which distinguishes it from siblings like 'use_notebook' or 'list_notebooks'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'restart_notebook' or other resource-related tools, keeping it at a 4 rather than 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'restart_notebook' or 'use_notebook', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., the notebook must be in use). It only implies usage through the action, lacking explicit context or exclusions.

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