Retrieve a Zeppelin notebook's permission details—owners, writers, and readers—by notebook ID to verify access rights before sharing or collaboration.
Get permission information for a notebook (owners, writers, readers).
Args:
notebook_id: The notebook ID to get permissions for
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notebook_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are grouped into owners/writers/readers, which is useful context, but says nothing about failure modes, access requirements, or whether visibility is limited to the caller's own permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The core sentence is front-loaded and precise with no filler. The Args block is boilerplate that merely restates the single parameter, costing a little space without adding information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description needn't explain return structure or side effects. With one documented parameter and a clear stated scope, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only caller-permission caveats are absent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter, and it does identify notebook_id as the notebook to fetch permissions for. However, it adds no format, source, or constraint details beyond restating the parameter name, so it only barely compensates.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (get) and resource (notebook permissions) plus the exact categories returned (owners, writers, readers). It is distinguishable from the sibling set_notebook_permissions by being the read counterpart, though it never names that sibling explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given; usage is only implied by the read-only framing of the name. The natural pairing with set_notebook_permissions is left for the agent to infer from the sibling list rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.