Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
nblm-mcp

nblm-mcp

by Diego-Dev-Moros
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

list_sources

Retrieve every source in a NotebookLM notebook with its processing status. See which sources are still ingesting and cannot ground answers yet.

Instructions

List the sources in a notebook, with their processing status.

A source that is not ready is still being ingested and will not ground answers yet.

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_id": "<notebook_id>"
    },
    "name": "list_sources"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
notebook_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the meaning of processing status (non-ready sources do not ground answers), but it omits permissions, ordering, and pagination details for a read operation.

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 sentences, front-loaded, with no filler. The second sentence efficiently explains the status semantics.

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?

Given an existing output schema and a single self-evident notebook_id parameter, the description covers the tool's core purpose and status behavior sufficiently for correct invocation. The main gap is the undocumented notebook_id.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The only parameter, notebook_id, has 0% schema description coverage, and the description merely says 'in a notebook' without defining the identifier format or where to obtain it. It adds almost no semantic meaning beyond the parameter name.

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 ('List') and resource ('sources in a notebook') plus the processing-status dimension. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like list_notebooks or add_source, but the scope is distinct.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage by explaining that non-ready sources are still being ingested and will not ground answers. However, it does not say when to prefer this over alternatives or what a caller should do with the returned statuses.

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