Apache Zeppelin MCP Server

add_paragraph

Insert a new code or content paragraph into an existing Apache Zeppelin notebook, with optional title and position index.

Instructions

Add a new paragraph to an existing notebook.

Args:
    notebook_id: The notebook ID to add the paragraph to
    text: The code/content for the paragraph
    title: Optional title for the paragraph
    index: Optional position index to insert the paragraph at

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	Yes
`index`	No
`title`	No
`notebook_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.1Oct 26, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the precondition that the notebook must be an existing one and clarifies that text is code/content, but says nothing about whether the new paragraph is auto-run, what happens if index is out of range, or where it lands by default.

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?

The purpose sentence is front-loaded and the args block is scannable. The parameter lines largely restate bare schema titles, so a little of the text is low-value, but overall it is compact.

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 all four parameters are covered. Still, for a mutation tool with zero schema description coverage, the definition omits the insertion-position default, error behavior for missing notebooks, and its relationship to the batch/sibling tools.

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 carry the load, and it does name and explain all four parameters, including that title and index are optional. However, the explanations are shallow: index is described only as "position index" without stating the default (append) behavior, and text's expected syntax (Python code vs markdown) is left ambiguous.

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 and resource ("Add a new paragraph to an existing notebook"), which is clearly distinguishable from read-side siblings like list_paragraphs or get_paragraph. However, it never distinguishes itself from batch_add_paragraph, clone_paragraph, or move_paragraph, which are the closest alternatives.

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 guidance on when to use this versus batch_add_paragraph, clone_paragraph, or create_notebook. The only implied constraint is that the notebook must already exist, which comes from the phrase "existing notebook" rather than an explicit statement.

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