NotebookLM MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

chat_configure

Configure chat settings for a NotebookLM notebook, including response length and conversation goal (default, learning guide, or custom).

Instructions

Configure notebook chat settings.

Args: notebook_id: Notebook UUID goal: default|learning_guide|custom custom_prompt: Required when goal=custom (max 10000 chars) response_length: default|longer|shorter

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": "chat_configure"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`notebook_id`	Yes
`goal`	No	default
`custom_prompt`	No
`response_length`	No	default

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.8May 28, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool is destructive/reversible, what it does to existing settings, or any authentication requirements. Only parameter constraints are mentioned.

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?

Extremely concise: purpose stated first, then parameter list in clean format. No superfluous text. Every sentence is informative.

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

Completeness3/5

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

While parameters are described, the overall effect of configuration (e.g., what goal or response_length actually do) is missing. Return value or success indication not mentioned. Annotations are absent. An output schema exists but description does not reference it.

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?

Adds valuable meaning beyond schema: explains custom_prompt is required when goal=custom with a max length constraint. This conditional logic is not in the schema. However, 0% schema coverage means more explanation would be beneficial.

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?

Description clearly states 'Configure notebook chat settings' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like chat_list and chat_get, which list/get chats, by indicating configuration. However, it could be more explicit about modifying existing settings.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use chat_configure vs alternative tools. It does not specify prerequisites or conditions (e.g., notebook existence, permissions) or exclude scenarios.

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