NotebookLM MCP Server (Security Hardened)

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

Annotations provide hints (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: true, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: true), but the description adds valuable context beyond this. It specifies that source IDs come from 'list_sources' and includes an example with parameter details, enhancing understanding of the tool's behavior and prerequisites 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 with a clear purpose statement, a 'Usage' section for guidelines, and an 'Example' section with JSON. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place, avoiding redundancy and maintaining efficiency.

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 (destructive operation with 3 parameters), annotations cover key behavioral traits, and schema coverage is high. The description adds usage guidelines and an example, making it fairly complete. However, without an output schema, it doesn't describe return values, leaving a minor gap in 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 already documents all parameters (notebook_id, notebook_url, source_id). The description adds minimal semantics by mentioning 'source ID from list_sources' in the usage section and showing an example, but this doesn't significantly enhance the schema's information. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 as 'Remove a source from a NotebookLM notebook,' specifying the verb ('Remove') and resource ('source from a NotebookLM notebook'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_source' or 'remove_notebook' by focusing on sources within notebooks, though it doesn't explicitly compare to them in the description text.

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 explicit usage guidelines in a 'Usage' section, stating 'First call list_sources to get source IDs' and 'Then call remove_source with the source ID.' This clearly indicates when to use this tool (after obtaining IDs from list_sources) and implies an alternative (list_sources) for prerequisite steps.

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