Apache Zeppelin MCP Server

update_paragraph_forms

Idempotent

Change dynamic form values in a Zeppelin paragraph without re-running it, preserving chart settings and parameter state.

Instructions

Update dynamic form values without re-executing the paragraph. Safest way to change form parameters when chart settings must be preserved.

Args:
    notebook_id: The notebook ID containing the paragraph
    paragraph_id: The paragraph ID to update
    params: Dict of form values to set, e.g. {"city": "Seoul", "limit": "10"}.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`params`	Yes
`notebook_id`	Yes
`paragraph_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

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety. It adds genuinely new behavioral context: the paragraph is not re-executed and chart settings survive the update. It omits permission requirements and what happens with invalid/unknown keys in params.

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 purpose statement followed by a short Args block; no filler. Minor redundancy between "Update dynamic form values" and "change form parameters", but each sentence still carries information.

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

Completeness4/5

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 all required params are described. Given the nested free-form params object, a pointer to the sibling that lists valid form keys would close the remaining gap.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and the Args block does document all three parameters with role descriptions for notebook_id and paragraph_id plus a concrete example for the free-form params dict. It does not say where valid key names come from (presumably get_paragraph_forms), leaving the nested object partly opaque.

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 dynamic form values") and adds a differentiating constraint ("without re-executing the paragraph"), which separates it from run_paragraph and update_paragraph. The second line reinforces the scope: changing form parameters while preserving chart settings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

"Safest way to change form parameters when chart settings must be preserved" gives a clear condition for choosing this tool over re-running or reconfiguring the paragraph. It stops short of naming explicit alternatives (e.g. update_paragraph_config) or stating when not to use it.

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