Fetch a Kaggle notebook's source code and markdown, stripped of outputs, using the owner/notebook reference. Use it to inspect or cite notebook content without running it.
A notebook's code and markdown (outputs stripped), with attribution. ref = owner/notebook.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | Yes | ||
| part | No | ||
| competition | No |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses that outputs are stripped and attribution included, which is real behavioral context. However, it omits whether the operation is read-only, permission requirements, and how the required 'competition' scoping affects behavior.
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 compact sentences with zero waste; the key payload description and the required-parameter format are front-loaded and immediately useful.
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 explained. However, with three parameters, one required and two undocumented, plus no annotations, the description leaves meaningful gaps around 'part' pagination and 'competition' scoping.
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 defines 'ref = owner/notebook', clarifying the only required parameter's format, but leaves 'part' and 'competition' entirely undocumented, so compensation is only partial.
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 the specific resource ('a notebook's code and markdown') and clarifies scope with '(outputs stripped)'. It does not use an explicit verb like 'fetch' or 'retrieve', and does not name siblings such as list_top_notebooks, but the resource is unambiguous.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_top_notebooks or fetch_competition. The agent must infer that this retrieves a single notebook by reference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.