NotebookLM MCP Server (Security Hardened)

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

Annotations already provide key behavioral hints (readOnlyHint: true, idempotentHint: true, destructiveHint: false), but the description adds valuable context by detailing the return values (status, progress, duration) and their conditions, which are not covered by annotations. This enhances transparency without contradicting 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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear sections for returns and an example. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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, rich annotations (e.g., readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the tool's purpose, return values, and provides an example, compensating for the lack of output schema and ensuring the agent has all necessary 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input 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, so it meets the baseline of 3 for adequate but no extra value.

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 a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('Video Overview generation status for a notebook'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'generate_video_overview' (which creates videos) and 'get_audio_status' (which checks audio status). It precisely defines what status is being checked.

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's for checking status after video generation, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_audio_status' or provide exclusions. It offers clear guidance on the tool's role without naming specific alternatives or when-not scenarios.

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