Apache Zeppelin MCP Server

batch_delete_paragraph

Destructive

Delete multiple Apache Zeppelin notebook paragraphs in a single call, with automatic content backups and per-item failure reporting.

Instructions

Delete multiple paragraphs in one call (batch version of delete_paragraph). Each paragraph's content is automatically backed up before deletion.

Prefer this over many delete_paragraph calls — it collapses N round-trips into one.
Paragraphs are deleted sequentially; one failing item does not stop the rest (failures are
reported in the result).

Args:
    notebook_id: The notebook ID containing the paragraphs
    paragraph_ids: List of paragraph IDs to delete.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`notebook_id`	Yes
`paragraph_ids`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.1Oct 26, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses that content is automatically backed up before deletion, that deletion is sequential, and that one failing item does not abort the batch — failures are reported in the result. These are precisely the behavioral traits an agent needs before invoking a destructive batch operation, and they are consistent with the annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Front-loaded with purpose and the key trade-off, then a compact Args block. Every sentence adds information; nothing is redundant.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a destructive batch tool with an output schema, the description covers safety (backup), failure semantics (partial success, errors in result), and usage routing. Return-value detail is correctly left to the output schema.

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 parameter burden; it does document both params (notebook_id as the containing notebook, paragraph_ids as the IDs to delete). However, it omits array constraints such as maximum batch size, duplicate handling, or empty-list behavior, leaving gaps the schema does not fill.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description states a specific verb and resource ("Delete multiple paragraphs") and explicitly frames itself as the batch counterpart of delete_paragraph. An agent can distinguish it from delete_paragraph and batch_update_paragraph without inspecting the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It names the alternative explicitly ("Prefer this over many delete_paragraph calls") and gives the condition that selects it (collapsing N round-trips into one). The routing decision is fully spelled out.

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