NotebookLM MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

source_get_content

Retrieve the raw text content of a source by its ID, including PDFs, web pages, pasted text, or YouTube transcripts. Faster than notebook_query for content export.

Instructions

Get raw text content of a source (no AI processing).

Returns the original indexed text from PDFs, web pages, pasted text, or YouTube transcripts. Much faster than notebook_query for content export.

Args: source_id: Source UUID

Returns: content (str), title (str), source_type (str), char_count (int)

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": {
      "source_id": "<source_id>"
    },
    "name": "source_get_content"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`source_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.8May 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains it returns raw text without processing and lists output fields. Does not cover error cases or authentication needs, but adequately describes behavior for a simple 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

Two clear sentences in first paragraph for purpose, then structured args/returns. Front-loaded and efficient, though the 'Returns' line could be integrated.

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 tool simplicity and presence of output schema, description covers main functionality, source types, and speed comparison. Lacks error handling details but is sufficient for a straightforward retrieval tool.

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?

Only parameter source_id is described as 'Source UUID', which is merely restating the parameter name. Schema coverage is 0%, and description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves raw text content from sources (PDFs, web pages, etc.) with no AI processing. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling notebook_query by noting speed advantage for content export.

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 guidance for when to use (exporting raw content, speed priority) and compares to a sibling. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools beyond notebook_query.

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