Apache Zeppelin MCP Server

set_notebook_permissions

Idempotent

Assign owner, writer, reader, and runner access to an Apache Zeppelin notebook by specifying its ID and usernames, so you can control who can view, edit, or run it.

Instructions

Set permission information for a notebook.

Args:
    notebook_id: The notebook ID to set permissions for
    owners: List of usernames with owner access
    writers: List of usernames with write access
    readers: List of usernames with read access
    runners: List of usernames with runner access

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`owners`	Yes
`readers`	Yes
`runners`	No
`writers`	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

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, but the critical behavioral question for a permissions setter — does this replace the full ACL or merge with existing grants — is never answered. Callers must also guess whether passing empty lists revokes access, a consequence with real blast radius that destructiveHint=false does not disambiguate.

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?

One-sentence summary front-loaded, followed by a compact Args block — standard and efficient. The parameter lines are mostly restatements of schema titles, so a few sentences don't fully earn their place, but nothing is bloated.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile, but for a five-parameter mutation tool, the absence of replace-vs-merge semantics and the optionality of runners leaves the definition materially incomplete for correct invocation.

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

Parameters3/5

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. It does name all five parameters and their role semantics (owner/write/read/runner), which adds meaning beyond bare titles, but it omits that runners is optional and defaults to null, and gives no format guidance for usernames.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: "Set permission information for a notebook." The name plus description makes it clearly distinguishable from the read-only sibling get_notebook_permissions, though the description itself 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.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this versus get_notebook_permissions, no prerequisites (does the caller need to be an owner?), and no warning about when not to call it. The agent is left to infer that this is the write counterpart to the read tool.

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