Executes all notebook code cells from top to bottom, optionally in the background, and lets you poll job status to track execution.
Run every code cell from the top. Background by default: poll job_status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| background | No | ||
| stop_on_error | No | ||
| max_output_chars | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that execution is backgrounded by default and requires polling job_status, but it says nothing about side effects of executing notebook code, failure behavior, stop_on_error semantics, or output truncation.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the key operational note. There is no filler.
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 values need not be described. Still, for a code-execution tool with no annotations and three undocumented parameters, the description omits important details about execution behavior, parameter effects, and failure handling.
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 must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only hints at the background default; stop_on_error and max_output_chars are never mentioned, leaving two of three parameters unexplained.
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 and resource: run every code cell from the top. The scope (all cells, ordered from top) helps distinguish it from sibling tools like run_cells and run_code, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.
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 note that background execution is the default and that job_status should be polled gives useful workflow guidance. However, it does not explain when to choose run_notebook over run_cells or run_code, or when background execution should be disabled.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.