NotebookLM MCP Server (Security Hardened)

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses the typical generation time (3-10 minutes), the immediate return with status, and authentication requirements. While annotations cover basic hints (e.g., not read-only, open-world), the description enriches this with practical details, though it could mention potential side effects like resource usage.

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 well-structured with clear sections (What This Tool Does, Visual Styles, Formats, Requirements, Example) and uses bullet points efficiently. It's appropriately sized, though some sections like the style list are lengthy but necessary. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information.

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 the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, rich annotations), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, and behavioral traits. However, it lacks details on error handling or output format, which could be helpful for an agent. The absence of an output schema makes this a minor gap.

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 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning (e.g., listing visual styles and formats with brief explanations), but doesn't provide significant additional semantics beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Generate an AI-powered Video Overview for a notebook') and distinguishes it from siblings like generate_audio_overview and get_video_status. It specifies the exact resource (notebook) and outcome (visual video summary), making the purpose 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?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool ('Generate an AI-powered Video Overview for a notebook') and provides clear alternatives (e.g., 'check with get_video_status' for status updates). It also lists prerequisites ('Notebook must have at least one source', 'Authentication required'), guiding proper usage.

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