NotebookLM MCP Server

by Robiton

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

notebook_share_invite

Invite a collaborator to a NotebookLM notebook by email, with optional viewer or editor role.

Instructions

Invite a collaborator by email.

Args: notebook_id: Notebook UUID email: Email address to invite role: "viewer" or "editor" (default: viewer)

Returns: success status

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>",
      "email": "<email>"
    },
    "name": "notebook_share_invite"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`notebook_id`	Yes
`email`	Yes
`role`	No	viewer

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.8May 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It only states 'Returns: success status', lacking details on error handling (e.g., invalid email, duplicate invite), side effects, or required permissions. Behavioral traits are minimally disclosed.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is concise with no extraneous words. It lists parameters clearly but could benefit from a more structured format (e.g., bullet points) for readability.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (not shown), return details may be there, but the description only says 'success status'. Lacks context on error conditions, idempotency, and whether the operation is reversible. Moderate completeness.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so description adds meaning: notebook_id is 'Notebook UUID', email is 'Email address to invite', role has explicit enum values ('viewer' or 'editor') with default. This compensates for missing schema descriptions.

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?

The description clearly states 'Invite a collaborator by email', specifying the verb 'invite' and the resource 'collaborator'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like notebook_share_status (status check) and notebook_share_public (public sharing) by focusing on email invite.

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 for inviting a specific user via email but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., batch share). No 'when not to use' or context about prerequisites.

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