hex-dashboard-mcp

get_cell_source

Retrieve the complete source code of a specific cell in a Hex notebook. View current Python, SQL, or HTML before making edits.

Instructions

Read the full source code of a specific cell (Python, SQL, or HTML). Use this before updating to understand what's already there.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>",
      "cell_id": "<cell_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_cell_source"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cell_id`	Yes
`project_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Without annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It explicitly says 'Read,' disclosing the non-mutating nature, and 'full source code' indicating no truncation. It does not mention permissions or side effects, but for a simple read operation this is adequate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences: the first states the action, the second provides usage guidance. No redundant or extraneous information.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the simple tool complexity, an output schema, and clear usage guidance, the description is complete. It mentions cell types and read scope, adequately covering what the agent needs to know.

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 compensate. The parameter names (project_id, cell_id) are self-explanatory, and the description adds context about supported cell types. However, it does not elaborate on parameter formats or relationships beyond the schema.

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?

The description clearly states the tool reads the full source code of a specific cell and specifies supported cell types (Python, SQL, or HTML). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_cell_source and get_project.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly instructs 'Use this before updating to understand what's already there,' giving a clear when-to-use scenario and implying update_cell_source as the alternative.

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

Deploy Server