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 discloses that the tool 'returns immediately after opening the browser' (asynchronous behavior), gives a time constraint ('up to 10 minutes to complete the login'), and provides troubleshooting steps for persistent auth issues. While annotations cover basic hints (readOnlyHint=false, etc.), the description adds practical implementation details.

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: main purpose, usage instructions, and troubleshooting. While slightly longer than minimal, every sentence serves a purpose. The troubleshooting section could be considered somewhat verbose but provides valuable operational guidance.

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 authentication complexity and lack of output schema, the description provides comprehensive context: it explains the authentication flow, success verification method ('get_health'), time constraints, troubleshooting procedures, and differentiation from sibling tools. This adequately compensates for the absence of output schema documentation.

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 schema already fully documents both parameters and their properties. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3. The description focuses on tool usage rather than parameter semantics.

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: 'Google authentication for NotebookLM access - opens a browser window for manual login to your Google account.' It specifies the exact action (opens browser for manual login) and resource (Google account for NotebookLM), and distinguishes it from sibling 're_auth' tool for different use cases.

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 guidance on when to use this tool ('first-time authentication or when auto-login credentials are not available') and when to use alternatives ('For switching accounts or rate-limit workarounds, use re_auth tool instead'). It also instructs to use 'get_health' afterwards to verify success.

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