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

jupyter-notebook-mcp

by g0g5
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

replace_cell

Replace the entire source of a Jupyter notebook cell by its index to update or overwrite code or markdown content in the active session.

Instructions

Replace the full source of the cell at the given index.

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>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "replace_cell"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
indexYes
contentYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Replace the full source' does signal a destructive overwrite of existing content, which is useful, but nothing is said about permissions, index bounds, failure behavior, or irreversibility.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the action and target front-loaded and no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter operation.

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. But for a mutation tool with no annotations and completely undocumented parameters, the description should disclose more about the destructive overwrite and index requirements to be fully complete.

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

Parameters3/5

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 partially: 'index' is identified as a cell index and content as the full cell source. However, it gives no format, type, or bounds details, so the two parameters remain loosely specified.

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 ('Replace') and resource ('the cell at the given index'), which cleanly separates it from read_cell, add_cell, and remove_cell. It is clear what the tool does, though it offers no explicit sibling differentiation to reinforce the distinction.

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 statement of when to use this versus add_cell, delete_cell, or read_cell, and no prerequisites such as requiring the index to already exist. The agent must infer the context entirely.

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