Apache Zeppelin MCP Server

batch_edit_paragraph

Destructive

Apply multiple find-and-replace edits across Zeppelin paragraphs in one call, with per-paragraph all-or-nothing updates and backups of changed content.

Instructions

Apply several find-and-replace edits in one call (batch version of edit_paragraph), across one or more paragraphs. Previous content of each changed paragraph is backed up.

Edits are grouped by paragraph and applied in the given order, each against the result of
the previous one. Per paragraph it is all-or-nothing: if any of its edits fails, that
paragraph is left untouched. Other paragraphs still proceed (failures are reported).

Args:
    notebook_id: The notebook ID containing the paragraphs
    edits: List of edits, each {paragraph_id, old_string, new_string, replace_all?}.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`edits`	Yes
`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

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructive=true and idempotent=false, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: prior paragraph content is backed up, edits are applied sequentially against the previous result, per-paragraph atomicity (all-or-nothing), and that other paragraphs continue with failures reported. This is exactly the failure/side-effect model an agent needs before a destructive batch mutation.

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 what the tool is and how it differs from its sibling, then ordering, atomicity, and failure reporting each get one short sentence. No filler; the Args block is terse and every line carries distinct information.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the description covers the destructive-mutation concerns (backup, partial failure, ordering) that the annotations alone don't. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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: it documents notebook_id and the edits array shape ({paragraph_id, old_string, new_string, replace_all?}) including the optional flag. It does not define replace_all semantics or its default of false, leaving that to be inferred from the schema title.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (find-and-replace edits on paragraphs) and immediately frames itself as the batch version of edit_paragraph, so the agent can distinguish it from that sibling without opening either schema. Scope ('across one or more paragraphs') is explicit.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

'batch version of edit_paragraph' plus 'several edits in one call' gives a clear condition for choosing this tool over the single-edit sibling. It never explicitly states the inverse (use edit_paragraph when you have a single edit) or any preconditions, so it stops short of a full when/when-not statement.

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