Detalhes de uma fonte.
Bulk support: accepts notebook_ids, source_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source_id | Yes | ||
| source_ids | No | ||
| notebook_id | Yes | ||
| notebook_ids | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering core safety. The description adds the behavioral trait of bulk execution (accepts notebook_ids, source_ids), but fails to mention return format or error behavior. No contradiction with annotations.
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 very concise (two short sentences) with no wasted words. However, it lacks structure (e.g., separate sections for single vs. batch) and could be slightly expanded for clarity without losing conciseness.
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?
Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and the tool's complexity, the description is insufficient. It does not specify return fields, required input format, or error handling, leaving the agent guessing about the tool's full behavior.
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 coverage, the description partially compensates by explaining that notebook_ids and source_ids enable batch execution. However, it does not explain the required single parameters (notebook_id, source_id) or their relationship to the arrays.
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 'Detalhes de uma fonte' (details of a source) clearly states the tool retrieves source details, distinguishing it from sibling tools like notebooklm_source_list (list sources) and notebooklm_source_delete. The bulk support mention reinforces its purpose for single or batch retrieval.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., notebooklm_source_list for listing, notebooklm_source_get for details). The description lacks context on prerequisites or comparison with sibling tools.
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.