NotebookLM MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a write operation ('Add') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions needed, whether the addition is reversible, how it interacts with existing sources, or error handling. The mention of 'doc_type' with options hints at supported formats, but lacks details on validation or defaults beyond the schema's 'default: doc'.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a structured 'Args:' section that efficiently documents parameters. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant information, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, but an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameters, but as a write operation tool, it lacks details on behavioral context, error cases, and integration with sibling tools. The output schema likely handles return values, so completeness is borderline viable.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all four parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'Drive document ID (from URL)', 'Display title'), adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't fully detail constraints like UUID format for 'notebook_id' or valid 'doc_type' values beyond the listed options, leaving gaps in parameter understanding.

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 action ('Add') and resource ('Google Drive document as source'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'notebook_add_text' and 'notebook_add_url' by specifying it's for Drive documents. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'source_sync_drive' or 'source_list_drive', which slightly limits differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'notebook_add_text', 'notebook_add_url', or other source-related tools. It mentions no prerequisites, constraints, or typical scenarios for adding Drive documents, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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