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

jupyter-notebook-mcp

by g0g5
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

save_markdown

Export active Jupyter notebook cells to Markdown block format on disk by providing the target file path.

Instructions

Export active notebook cells to markdown block format on disk.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "save_markdown"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
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 implies a disk-write but says nothing about overwrite behavior, required permissions, whether the file must already exist, or which cells are included beyond 'active'. For a write tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficiently sized, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than being purely economical.

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

Completeness2/5

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. However, with no annotations, 0% parameter coverage, and a mutation-implying behavior, the description leaves too much unspecified for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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?

One parameter at 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains what 'path' means (file path vs. directory, extension handling, relative vs. absolute). The phrase 'on disk' only weakly hints at the destination semantics, so the description does not 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?

The description states a specific verb+resource ('Export active notebook cells') plus output format ('markdown block format') and destination ('on disk'). This implicitly distinguishes it from save_notebook (native format) and from_markdown (import direction), though those siblings are never named.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no alternatives are named, despite obvious candidates in the sibling set (save_notebook for the native format, from_markdown for the reverse direction). The agent must infer the choice from format keywords alone.

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