Insert a new code, markdown, or raw cell into the active Jupyter notebook at a chosen index; omit the index to append it.
Insert after index, or append when index is omitted.
cell_type must be one of: code, markdown, raw.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| index | No | ||
| content | Yes | ||
| cell_type | No | code |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the insertion-position semantics and the accepted cell_type values, but says nothing about whether a notebook must be loaded first, whether the addition is persisted or in-memory, or any side effects of this mutation.
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?
Two compact sentences, each earning its place: the first covers positioning behavior and the second covers the enum constraint. The most decision-relevant information (insertion semantics) is front-loaded with no filler.
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?
Because an output schema exists, return values need not be explained, and the operation itself is fully specified for a low-complexity, three-parameter tool. The only real gap is the absence of the target-notebook context, which the sibling load_notebook implies but the description never states.
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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for two of three parameters: it clarifies index semantics (insert-after, append when omitted) and enumerates cell_type values that the schema does not constrain. Only content is left undocumented, and its meaning is self-evident from the name.
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 pairs a specific verb (insert/append) with a specific resource (cell), and the positioning rule makes the operation unambiguous. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like replace_cell or remove_cell to sharpen differentiation, 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?
It explains the conditional behavior of index (insert-after vs append when omitted), which implicitly tells the agent which form to use. However, there is no guidance on when to choose add_cell over replace_cell, remove_cell, or from_markdown, nor any stated prerequisite.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.