NotebookLM MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the confirmation requirement ('Requires confirm=True after user approval'), which is valuable behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose other important traits like whether this is a read/write operation, what permissions are needed, whether it's destructive, rate limits, or what the output looks like beyond generating an infographic.

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 appropriately sized but not optimally structured. The first sentence states the purpose, but the parameter explanations are presented in a separate 'Args:' section rather than integrated into a cohesive narrative. While all information is useful, the two-part structure could be more fluidly integrated for better front-loading of key information.

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 (7 parameters, confirmation requirement) and the presence of an output schema (which means return values don't need explanation), the description provides good contextual completeness. It covers the confirmation workflow, explains all parameters meaningfully, and states the core purpose. The main gap is lack of behavioral context about permissions, side effects, or error conditions that annotations would normally provide.

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 0% schema description coverage for 7 parameters, the description provides substantial value by explaining each parameter's purpose and constraints. It clarifies that 'notebook_id' is a UUID, 'source_ids' defaults to all sources, 'orientation' has three specific options, 'detail_level' has three levels, 'language' uses BCP-47 codes with examples, 'focus_prompt' is optional text, and 'confirm' must be True after approval. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 the verb 'Generate' and resource 'infographic', making it immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'slide_deck_create' or 'report_create' by specifying it creates visual infographics rather than other content types. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'mind_map_create' also creates visual content).

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 clear context about when to use this tool: 'after user approval' with 'confirm=True'. This gives important guidance about the confirmation requirement before execution. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use this tool or mention alternatives among the many sibling tools for different content types.

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