Insert or delete cells in a Mathematica notebook by writing content with a specified style and position, or removing a cell by index.
Insert or delete a cell. actions: write(content,style,position) | delete(index).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| index | No | ||
| style | No | Input | |
| action | Yes | ||
| anchor | No | ||
| content | No | ||
| notebook | No | ||
| position | No | end |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that delete(index) is destructive and write takes content/style/position, but it does not explain consequences, reversibility, notebook context, or how position/anchor affect insertion. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.
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 compact sentence with the operation front-loaded and no filler. Every token contributes to understanding the available actions and their parameter groupings.
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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, this is incomplete. It does not explain the role of notebook or anchor, how write uses position, or when index is required. The output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the input semantics remain under-specified.
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. It usefully maps write to content/style/position and delete to index, but it omits notebook and anchor and does not clarify what position or anchor mean. The mapping helps but remains incomplete.
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 clear verb and resource: 'Insert or delete a cell', and enumerates the two action variants. It is obvious that this tool mutates cells, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like cells or evaluate_cells.
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?
No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cells, evaluate_cells, or batch. There are no exclusions, preconditions, or examples to help an agent decide correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.