Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
jupyter-notebook-mcp

jupyter-notebook-mcp

by g0g5
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

read_cell

Retrieve a cell's type and full source from the active Jupyter notebook session by index to inspect or edit its content.

Instructions

Return one active cell by index with type and full source.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "index": "<index>"
    },
    "name": "read_cell"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
indexYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does say what comes back (type and full source), but is silent on permissions, error behavior for an out-of-range index, and what 'active' means for a cell, leaving real gaps for an unannotated tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word carries weight. It is arguably under-specified rather than padded, but the structure itself is efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the tool is a simple one-parameter read. Still, the undefined notion of 'active cell' and unspecified index semantics leave meaningful ambiguity that the description could have closed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single 'index' parameter has no description in the schema. The description only repeats 'by index' without clarifying zero- vs one-based indexing, ordering, or whether it references the notebook's active cell — it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Return) and resource (one active cell), scoped by index, and even names the returned payload (type and full source). It distinguishes itself implicitly from search_cell by saying 'one ... by index', but never names or contrasts a sibling explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as search_cell or load_notebook. The agent must infer the retrieval use case purely from the verb and the parameter.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools