nblm-mcp

create_notebook

Creates an empty Google NotebookLM notebook by title; add sources before asking grounded questions.

Instructions

Create an empty notebook.

A notebook with no sources cannot answer questions — follow up with add_source before calling ask.

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": {
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "create_notebook"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`title`	Yes	Display title for the new notebook.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 12, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

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 a non-obvious behavioral trait: the created notebook starts empty and is functionally useless for answering questions until sources are added. It omits any mention of permissions/auth or duplicate-title behavior, but the key post-condition is stated.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the operation is stated first and the follow-up prerequisite second. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the essential behavior for a simple one-parameter creation tool. The only missing pieces are permission/error context, which is minor at this complexity.

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?

There is a single parameter (title) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains it fully. The description adds no format, length, or uniqueness constraints beyond the schema, which is the baseline-3 situation.

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 ('Create an empty notebook') and immediately qualifies the result as empty, which tells an agent what state the object will be in. It does not name a sibling to contrast with, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Provides clear context: an empty notebook cannot answer questions, so call add_source before ask. That is real workflow guidance tying this tool to the next step. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' clause or a comparison against list_notebooks/get_notebook, so it falls just short of a 5.

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

Deploy Server