NotebookLM MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the user approval requirement (important behavioral constraint) but doesn't describe what the tool actually produces (output format), potential side effects, or performance characteristics. The description adds some behavioral context but leaves significant gaps.

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?

The description is efficiently structured with a brief purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value, though the confirm requirement is stated twice ('Requires confirm=True' and 'Must be True'), creating minor redundancy. The information is well-organized and appropriately sized for a 7-parameter tool.

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?

Given the complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers parameter semantics well and includes the critical user approval requirement. However, it doesn't explain what an 'infographic' output entails (format, content, size) or how the tool behaves operationally. The existence of an output schema reduces but doesn't eliminate the need for some behavioral context.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides semantic meaning for all 7 parameters: notebook_id (Notebook UUID), source_ids (Source IDs with default behavior), orientation (landscape|portrait|square options), detail_level (concise|standard|detailed options), language (BCP-47 codes), focus_prompt (Optional focus text), and confirm (Must be True after user approval). This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.

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?

The description clearly states the verb ('Generate') and resource ('infographic'), making the purpose unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'slide_deck_create' or 'report_create', but the specific output type (infographic) provides reasonable distinction.

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?

The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Requires confirm=True after user approval' and 'Must be True after user approval' for the confirm parameter. This clearly indicates when the tool should be used (after obtaining user consent) and establishes a prerequisite condition.

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