NotebookLM MCP Server (Security Hardened)

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

Annotations already cover key behavioral traits: readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds minimal context beyond this, only specifying that it retrieves 'detailed information'. It doesn't disclose additional aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'detailed information' entails, but doesn't contradict annotations either.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get detailed information about a specific notebook by ID'). There's no wasted language or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 low complexity (single parameter, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on return format, error handling, or integration with sibling tools. For a read-only retrieval tool, this is acceptable but leaves room for more contextual guidance.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter fully documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, merely restating that it's 'by ID'. This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage, but doesn't enhance parameter understanding with examples or contextual details.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'notebook' with specificity 'detailed information about a specific notebook by ID'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_notebooks' by focusing on single-item retrieval rather than listing. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'search_notebooks' or 'select_notebook', which slightly limits differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'get_notebook' over 'list_notebooks' for browsing, 'search_notebooks' for filtering, or 'select_notebook' for selection contexts. There's no indication of prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage entirely implicit.

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