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 describes the tool's behavior as listing sources with freshness status, which implies a read-only operation. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination, or error conditions. The description adds some context about freshness status but lacks comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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 highly concise and well-structured. It uses two sentences: the first states the purpose, and the second provides usage guidance. The parameter explanation is brief and directly relevant. There is no wasted text, and key information is front-loaded effectively.

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 (listing with freshness status), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, usage, and parameter semantics. The output schema likely handles return values, so the description doesn't need to explain them. However, it could benefit from more behavioral details like authentication needs or error handling.

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 parameter semantics beyond the input schema. The schema has 0% description coverage and only defines notebook_id as a required string. The description explains that notebook_id is a 'Notebook UUID,' clarifying its format and purpose. With only one parameter and no schema descriptions, this additional context is valuable and compensates well.

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: 'List sources with types and Drive freshness status.' This specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('sources'), and key attributes ('types and Drive freshness status'). It distinguishes from siblings like source_describe or source_get_content by focusing on listing with freshness status. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from source_sync_drive beyond usage guidance.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use before source_sync_drive to identify stale sources.' This clearly states when to use this tool (before source_sync_drive) and why (to identify stale sources), directly naming an alternative tool. It effectively guides the agent on tool selection in context.

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