Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
nblm-mcp

nblm-mcp

by Diego-Dev-Moros
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

auth_status

Verifies the server has a working NotebookLM session by making a real request, distinguishing missing cookies from expired ones when other tools report auth errors.

Instructions

Check whether this server has a working NotebookLM session.

Call this first when any other tool reports an auth problem. It performs a real (cheap) request, so it distinguishes "no cookies stored" from "cookies stored but expired".

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "auth_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: it makes a real (cheap) network request and can distinguish 'no cookies stored' from 'cookies stored but expired'. It does not mention permissions, rate limits, or failure modes, but for a diagnostic probe this is substantive disclosure.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the routing advice and the behavioral caveat. Every sentence adds information; nothing is padded.

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

Completeness5/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. For a zero-parameter diagnostic tool, the description supplies everything needed to call it correctly: what it checks, when to call it, and that it costs a real request.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the 4 baseline applies. The prose adds no parameter detail, but none is needed.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource: checks whether the server has a working NotebookLM session. It is unmistakably distinct from every sibling (which act on notebooks, sources, artifacts, or chat), so an agent can identify it without opening a schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives an explicit trigger condition: call it first when any other tool reports an auth problem. It does not state the inverse (e.g., that it need not be called before routine operations), so it is clear context without full when-not guidance.

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