notebooklm-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's a scraping tool that navigates to a website, extracts specific data (ID, name, URL), requires authentication, and mentions a headless browser option via the parameter. However, it doesn't detail potential side effects like rate limits or errors, keeping it from a perfect score.

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?

Well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by bullet points for use cases and a note on authentication. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, 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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is largely complete for a scraping tool—it covers purpose, usage, authentication, and behavioral context. It could slightly improve by hinting at output format or error handling, but it's adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 100% for the single parameter 'show_browser', which is well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add parameter-specific details beyond implying the scraping context, but with high schema coverage and only one parameter, the baseline is strong. It loses a point for not reinforcing the parameter's role in the scraping process.

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 specific action ('scrape the NotebookLM homepage'), resource ('all notebooks'), and output details ('IDs and names'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_notebooks' by specifying it scrapes the homepage for real-time discovery versus potentially cached/library listings.

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?

Explicitly provides when to use (e.g., 'discover notebooks not yet in your library', 'get accurate notebook IDs for automation', 'verify which notebooks exist', 'find notebooks to delete') and includes a prerequisite ('Requires authentication. Run setup_auth first if not authenticated'). This gives clear context and alternatives.

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