Apache Zeppelin MCP Server

batch_update_paragraph

DestructiveIdempotent

Update multiple Zeppelin notebook paragraphs in one request to reduce round-trips; prior content is backed up and failures are reported per item.

Instructions

Update multiple paragraphs in one call (batch version of update_paragraph). Previous content of each changed paragraph is automatically backed up.

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

For small targeted changes prefer batch_edit_paragraph, which sends only changed snippets.

Args:
    notebook_id: The notebook ID containing the paragraphs
    updates: List of edits, each {paragraph_id, text, title?}.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`updates`	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

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), the description discloses that previous content is automatically backed up, that updates run sequentially, and that a failing item does not abort the batch but is reported in the result. Those are exactly the risk/partial-success semantics an agent needs before invoking 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with purpose, then batching rationale, then failure semantics, then arguments — a clean information hierarchy. The Args block partly restates the schema's nested object shape, but that is justified by the 0% schema coverage.

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?

Covers scope, batching trade-off, backup behavior, partial-failure handling, and argument meanings; an output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the description still points at where failures surface. Nothing needed to call it 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: notebook_id is identified as the containing notebook, and updates is described as a list of edits shaped {paragraph_id, text, title?}. It could still state whether title omission preserves the existing title, which is the one ambiguous case.

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 ("Update multiple paragraphs in one call") and immediately anchors it to its non-batch sibling ("batch version of update_paragraph"). An agent can distinguish it from update_paragraph and batch_edit_paragraph without opening any 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?

Explicit routing rules are given: prefer this over many update_paragraph calls when editing several paragraphs, and prefer batch_edit_paragraph for small targeted changes. Both the when-to-use and the when-to-use-something-else conditions are named.

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