NotebookLM MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Add pasted text as source,' implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the addition is permanent or reversible, rate limits, or what the output schema returns. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

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 and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a structured 'Args:' section. There's no wasted text, and each part serves a clear function. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the args into the main description, but overall it's efficient and well-organized.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the basic action and parameters but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. The presence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation, but other aspects like error handling or side effects are missing. This results in a description that meets minimum viability but has clear gaps.

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 parameters ('notebook_id', 'text', 'title') with brief notes ('Notebook UUID', 'Text content to add', 'Optional title'), adding basic meaning beyond the schema's type definitions. However, it doesn't explain format details (e.g., UUID structure, text length limits, title default behavior), leaving parameters partially documented. With 0% coverage, this is a minimal but adequate effort.

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 pasted text as source') and identifies the target resource ('source' in a notebook). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'notebook_add_drive' or 'notebook_add_url' by specifying text content. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'source_describe' or 'source_get_content', which are read operations, leaving some ambiguity about sibling 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing notebook), exclusions (e.g., not for editing existing text), or compare it to siblings like 'notebook_create' for initial setup or 'source_delete' for removal. Usage is implied only by the action name, with no explicit context.

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