Locate matching content across all Apache Zeppelin notebook paragraphs by running a full-text query, with an optional result limit.
Full-text search across all notebook paragraphs.
Args:
query: Search query string
max_results: Maximum number of results to return (default 20, 0 = unlimited).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| max_results | No |
| 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 max_results=0 means unlimited, which is behaviorally useful, but says nothing about case sensitivity, ranking/ordering of results, or which paragraph content is indexed. Given annotation coverage, 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?
One sentence plus a short Args block; front-loaded with the purpose and free of filler. The Args block largely restates schema field titles, which is modest waste.
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, so return-value shape need not be described. However, for a search tool the description omits what is searched (markdown source, code, outputs), how results are ordered, and how max_results interacts with result ranking — gaps an agent must guess at.
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 carries the full burden. It clarifies that 0 means unlimited and that the default is 20 — genuinely beyond the schema — but 'query: Search query string' is a tautology with no syntax, operator, or scope information, leaving a real 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?
States a specific verb (full-text search) and resource (notebook paragraphs) with scope 'across all notebook paragraphs', which implicitly distinguishes it from list_paragraphs and get_paragraph. It does not explicitly name or contrast with those siblings, keeping it at a 4.
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?
The description never says when to use this instead of list_notebooks, list_paragraphs, or get_paragraph, nor what kind of queries it suits (exact phrase, fuzzy, code search). An agent must infer the selection criteria from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.