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 effectively describes key traits: it's a blocking operation that waits for completion or timeout, includes polling behavior with configurable intervals, and mentions token-saving truncation with the 'compact' parameter. However, it doesn't cover error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs.

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, starting with the core purpose and blocking behavior. The parameter explanations are structured in a bullet-like format under 'Args:', making it easy to scan. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and there's no wasted text.

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 (blocking with polling) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, behavior, and parameter semantics well. However, it lacks details on error cases (e.g., what happens if the notebook_id is invalid) and doesn't mention sibling tools for context, which could help in tool selection.

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 fully. It adds significant meaning beyond the schema by explaining all four parameters: 'notebook_id' as a Notebook UUID, 'poll_interval' as seconds between polls with a default, 'max_wait' as max seconds to wait with details on the 0 value, and 'compact' as a boolean for truncating reports to save tokens. This provides clear semantics that the schema alone lacks.

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 as 'Poll research progress' with the specific action of blocking until completion or timeout. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'research_start' (initiates research) and 'studio_status' (checks studio status) by focusing on polling progress. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'notebook_query' or 'notebook_describe' which might also provide status information.

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'Blocks until complete or timeout,' suggesting it should be used when waiting for research completion. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'notebook_query' or 'notebook_describe' for status checks, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a started research).

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