Ask the in-app assistant about a notebook and get the reply in the notebook's sql_editor_inbox by providing notebook ID, question, and optional context.
Ask the in-app assistant about the notebook; the reply arrives in the notebook's inbox (sql_editor_inbox).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| context | No | ||
| profile | No | ||
| question | Yes | ||
| notebook_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With readOnlyHint=true already covering the safety profile, the valuable addition here is the asynchronous delivery behavior: the answer is not returned inline but lands in sql_editor_inbox. That is a real behavioral trait the annotations do not convey. It omits auth, rate-limit, or kernel-requirement details, keeping it below a 5.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler: verb first, resource next, delivery destination last. Nothing is repeated from the name or schema, and no sentence is wasted.
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?
The description covers the critical async-retrieval behavior and points at the sql_editor_inbox sibling for fetching the reply, which is the most important missing piece for an agent. It still leaves the 'context' and 'profile' parameters and any execution prerequisites unexplained, so it is only minimally complete for a 4-parameter tool with no output schema.
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% across all 4 parameters, so the description is the only place semantics could be supplied. It mentions only implicitly the notebook and question, and says nothing at all about the optional 'context' or 'profile' parameters, leaving half the surface undocumented in both schema and prose.
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 names a specific verb ("Ask") and a specific resource (the in-app assistant about the notebook), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from closely named siblings like sql_editor_ask, query_history_ask, or notebook_assistant_warm, 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?
Usage is only implied: stating that the reply arrives in the notebook inbox (sql_editor_inbox) signals an asynchronous, fire-and-retrieve pattern and gives the agent the follow-up tool. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no named alternative among the many sibling ask/assistant tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.