NotebookLM MCP Server (Security Hardened)

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by detailing the return structure (array with id, title, type, status) and linking 'id' to 'remove_source', which is useful context beyond annotations. 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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, returns, example) and uses bullet points efficiently. It is appropriately sized, but the example section could be slightly condensed. Most sentences earn their place, with minimal waste.

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 (list operation), rich annotations (covering safety and behavior), and 100% schema coverage, the description is complete. It adds necessary context like return structure and parameter examples, compensating for the lack of an output schema. No significant gaps remain for agent use.

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 input schema fully documents parameters. The description adds minimal semantics by providing example usage and noting that 'notebook_url' overrides 'notebook_id', but this is redundant with the schema's description. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles most documentation.

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 ('List all sources') and resource ('in a NotebookLM notebook'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_notebooks' (which lists notebooks) and 'add_source' (which adds sources). It precisely defines the scope and target.

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 by specifying the context ('in a NotebookLM notebook') and provides examples for input parameters, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_notebook' or 'search_notebooks'. The guidance is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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