notebook_getRetrieve complete notebook details and linked sources by providing the notebook UUID. Access structured information for efficient review and management.
Get notebook details with sources.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notebook_id | Yes | Notebook UUID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.11.2Input schema / properties / notebook_id / descriptionAdded value: +"Notebook UUID"v0.9.5v0.9.1v0.9.1v0.8.9v0.7.7Input schema / properties / notebook_id / descriptionRemoved value: -"Notebook UUID"v0.6.13Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read operation and 'with sources' hints at the response content, but it does not disclose permission requirements, whether sources are fully resolved, error behavior, or side effects.
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 description is a single concise sentence with no filler. The core operation and the distinctive 'with sources' detail are front-loaded. It loses the fifth point because it provides no additional context or structural differentiation.
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 simple one-parameter get tool with an output schema, this is minimally adequate. The output schema covers return values, so the description need not detail them, but the absence of annotations and lack of disambiguation from notebook_describe leave meaningful gaps.
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 100%, and the single parameter notebook_id is documented as 'Notebook UUID'. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already handles parameter semantics adequately.
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 concrete operation: get notebook details, and adds 'with sources' to indicate the scope of the result. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like notebook_describe or notebook_query, so it is clear but not fully distinguishable.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as notebook_describe or notebook_query. The description only states what the tool does, not the conditions that make it the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.