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 details the return values (status, progress, duration) and their semantics (e.g., progress only applies if generating). Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive traits, so the description appropriately focuses on output behavior, though it could mention rate limits or auth needs for a 5.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by organized sections for returns and an example. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 moderate complexity (status checking with two parameters), rich annotations (e.g., readOnlyHint), and no output schema, the description provides good completeness by explaining return values and including an example. It could be a 5 if it explicitly linked to sibling tools like 'generate_audio_overview' for full context.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents the two parameters (notebook_id and notebook_url). The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as clarifying the relationship between the two parameters. This meets the baseline of 3 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 tool's purpose with specific verb ('Check') and resource ('audio overview generation status for a notebook'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'generate_audio_overview' (which initiates generation) and 'download_audio' (which retrieves audio). It precisely defines what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

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 context by specifying it checks status for audio generation, suggesting it should be used after initiating generation (e.g., with 'generate_audio_overview'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, such as noting that 'get_video_status' is for video instead of audio, which would have made it a 5.

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