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 'Get notebook details with sources' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or what 'sources' entails (e.g., metadata, content, or references). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a brief parameter note. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, though the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the parameter information more seamlessly rather than as a separate 'Args' section.

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 should cover return values), the description is moderately complete for a simple retrieval tool. However, with no annotations and minimal parameter details, it lacks context on behavioral aspects like error cases or usage constraints, making it adequate but with 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?

The description adds minimal parameter semantics by specifying 'notebook_id: Notebook UUID', which clarifies the format beyond the schema's basic string type. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this provides some value but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of schema details (e.g., validation rules or examples).

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 'Get' and resource 'notebook details with sources', making it specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'notebook_describe' or 'notebook_list', which would require more precise scope definition.

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_describe' or 'notebook_list' from the sibling list. It mentions retrieving details with sources but doesn't clarify if this is for a specific notebook ID only or how it differs from other notebook-related tools.

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