Retrieve dynamic form definitions and current parameter values for a specific paragraph to inspect its input parameters.
Get dynamic form definitions and current parameter values for a paragraph.
Args:
notebook_id: The notebook ID containing the paragraph
paragraph_id: The paragraph ID to inspect
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notebook_id | Yes | ||
| paragraph_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 it returns both form definitions and current parameter values, which is useful context, but adds little beyond that. Since the output schema also exists, a 3 is appropriate.
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 zero-waste, followed by a compact Args list. Efficient and well-structured, though the args phrasing is somewhat redundant.
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?
For a read-only two-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers the basics. It omits the relationship to the update counterpart and any hint of return shape, but those gaps are partially mitigated by the output schema and annotations.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The Args block names both parameters and briefly states what each ID refers to, but adds no format or scoping detail ('containing the paragraph', 'to inspect' are near-restatements). Minimal compensation for the coverage gap.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Get dynamic form definitions and current parameter values for a paragraph.' An agent can tell it inspects form definitions, not just paragraph content. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from the update_paragraph_forms sibling, so it falls short of a 5.
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 when-to-use context and no mention of the natural alternative update_paragraph_forms (read vs. write). The agent has to infer the intended usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.