Pesquisa na web (ou Drive) e adiciona fontes a partir dos resultados.
Bulk support: accepts notebook_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| import_all | No | ||
| from_source | No | ||
| notebook_id | Yes | ||
| notebook_ids | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate this is a mutation tool (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive. The description confirms it adds sources, consistent with annotations. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like duplicate handling, permission requirements, or rate limits beyond what annotations already convey.
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 concise sentences: first states core purpose, second adds batch capability. No fluff, front-loaded with the primary action, every sentence adds value.
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 omits return value (no output schema), error behavior, or execution order. Given 6 parameters and moderate complexity, the agent lacks critical context to use the tool reliably beyond basic invocation.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains from_source (web/drive) and notebook_ids (bulk), but leaves mode (fast/deep), import_all, and notebook_id unelucidated. This partial coverage is insufficient for an agent to correctly configure all parameters.
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 clearly states the tool searches the web (or Drive) and adds sources from results, with explicit mention of bulk support via notebook_ids. It distinguishes itself from sibling notebooklm_source_add (which likely adds sources directly) by including the research action.
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 description implies usage for research-based source addition and mentions bulk support, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like notebooklm_source_add, nor does it list any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes (notebook vs source vs note vs artifact vs sharing). Minor overlap exists between notebooklm_ask and notebooklm_history (both Q&A-related) and between artifact generate/poll/retry, but descriptions help differentiate. Meta-tools like marketplace and authenticate are separate in function.
Core tools follow a consistent notebooklm_{resource}_{action} pattern. However, meta-tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) lack the notebooklm_ prefix, breaking overall naming consistency. Within the core domain, naming is predictable.
43 tools is high but covers a broad domain: notebooks, sources, notes, artifacts (multiple types), sharing, Q&A, plus meta-tools. Some tools could be merged (e.g., share_add/remove/update/view_level), and meta-tools inflate count. Feels slightly heavy but not excessive for the feature set.
Covers full lifecycle for notebooks, sources, notes, artifacts (CRUD plus generate, download, poll, retry, suggestions). Sharing and Q&A have comprehensive operations. Minor gap: no tool to update notebook metadata beyond rename, but overall very complete.