notebook_usoCheck how much of NotebookLM's AI usage limit is spent, including the few-hour rolling limit and weekly cap, to track Studio consumption.
Mostra quanto do limite de uso da IA do NotebookLM já foi gasto (limite atual, que renova a cada poucas horas, e limite semanal). O Estúdio (principalmente vídeo, slides e áudio) consome esse limite.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.16.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the current limit renews every few hours, a separate weekly limit exists, and Studio generation is what depletes it – exactly the traits an agent needs to interpret the numbers it gets back.
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?
Two short sentences with zero filler, front-loading what is reported before explaining what consumes it. Every clause carries information.
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?
For a no-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers what is measured, the two limit windows, and the consumption model. It stops short of indicating the shape of the returned values or any auth/permission requirement, but nothing essential is missing.
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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate on the input side.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: it shows how much of the NotebookLM AI usage limit has been consumed, split into current and weekly limits. This clearly distinguishes it from content-generation siblings like notebook_gerar_video, but it never names the closely related quota siblings flow_creditos/flow_gastos, so the differentiation from those is left implicit.
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?
Usage is only implied: the note that the Studio (video, slides, audio) consumes this limit suggests checking it before generating. There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no reference to the parallel Flow quota tools that an agent might otherwise pick.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.