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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Add') but doesn't describe what 'Add' entails—e.g., whether it creates a new source, appends to existing content, requires permissions, or has side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 clear Args section. Every sentence earns its place: the first defines the action, and the second documents parameters. It's appropriately sized with zero waste, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values), the description doesn't need to explain outputs. However, with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is minimal—it covers the basics but lacks details on behavior, error cases, or integration context. It's adequate as a starting point but has clear gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

The description lists the two parameters (notebook_id and url) with brief explanations, but schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides no details. The description adds basic semantics (e.g., 'Notebook UUID', 'URL to add'), which compensates partially. However, it doesn't specify URL formats, validation rules, or notebook_id constraints, leaving gaps.

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 URL') and resource ('as source'), specifying it accepts websites or YouTube URLs. It distinguishes from sibling tools like notebook_add_text and notebook_add_drive by focusing on URLs, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them. The purpose is specific but lacks explicit 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 like notebook_add_text or notebook_add_drive. It mentions the resource type (URLs) but doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. Usage is implied only by the tool name and brief description, with no explicit when/when-not instructions.

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