Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-google

mcp-google

by Antonio-byte10
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Listar fontes de um notebook

notebook_fontes
Read-only

Lists notebook sources with type, size, status, and link to help you audit and manage content origins.

Instructions

Lista as fontes do notebook com tipo (site, YouTube, PDF, arquivo, texto, Drive…), tamanho, estado e link.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "notebook": "<notebook>"
    },
    "name": "notebook_fontes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
notebookYesId, URL ou título do notebook (o título pode ser parcial).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.16.1

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context by enumerating the fields returned (type, size, state, link), useful since no output schema exists. It says nothing about ordering, pagination, or behavior for a notebook with zero sources.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the returned-field list appended efficiently. Nothing is padded, though the parenthetical type enumeration is slightly verbose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, describing the returned fields closes the main information gap, and annotations cover safety. Missing only minor operational details (ordering, empty-result behavior) that an agent could discover on first call.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% — the single parameter already documents that an id, URL, or partial title is accepted. The description adds no further parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ("Lista as fontes do notebook") and enumerates the returned attributes (tipo, tamanho, estado, link). An agent can tell it apart from notebook_listar and notebook_fonte_ler, though the description never names those siblings explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (notebook must exist / have sources), and no routing to alternatives such as notebook_pesquisar_fontes for searching or notebook_fonte_ler for a single source's content. Usage is only inferable from the name.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools