NotebookLM MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

studio_create

Create any NotebookLM studio artifact — audio, video, infographic, slide deck, report, flashcards, quiz, data table, or mind map — from notebook sources.

Instructions

Create any NotebookLM studio artifact. Unified creation tool.

Supports: audio, video, infographic, slide_deck, report, flashcards, quiz, data_table, mind_map

Args: notebook_id: Notebook UUID artifact_type: Type of artifact to create: - audio: Audio Overview (podcast) - video: Video Overview - infographic: Visual infographic - slide_deck: Presentation slides (PDF) - report: Text report (Briefing Doc, Study Guide, etc.) - flashcards: Study flashcards - quiz: Multiple choice quiz - data_table: Structured data table - mind_map: Visual mind map source_ids: Source IDs to use (default: all sources) confirm: Must be True after user approval

Type-specific options:
- audio: audio_format (deep_dive|brief|critique|debate), audio_length (short|default|long)
- video: video_format (explainer|brief|cinematic), visual_style (auto_select|custom|classic|whiteboard|kawaii|anime|watercolor|retro_print|heritage|paper_craft), video_style_prompt
- infographic: orientation (landscape|portrait|square), detail_level (concise|standard|detailed), infographic_style (auto_select|sketch_note|professional|bento_grid|editorial|instructional|bricks|clay|anime|kawaii|scientific)
- slide_deck: slide_format (detailed_deck|presenter_slides), slide_length (short|default)
- report: report_format (Briefing Doc|Study Guide|Blog Post|Create Your Own), custom_prompt
- flashcards: difficulty (easy|medium|hard)
- quiz: question_count (int), difficulty (easy|medium|hard)
- data_table: description (required)
- mind_map: title

Common options:
- language: BCP-47 code (en, es, fr, de, ja). Defaults to NOTEBOOKLM_HL env var or 'en'
- focus_prompt: Optional focus text

Example: studio_create(notebook_id="abc", artifact_type="audio", confirm=True) studio_create(notebook_id="abc", artifact_type="quiz", question_count=5, confirm=True)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`notebook_id`	Yes
`artifact_type`	Yes
`source_ids`	No
`confirm`	No
`audio_format`	No	deep_dive
`audio_length`	No	default
`video_format`	No	explainer
`visual_style`	No	auto_select
`video_style_prompt`	No
`orientation`	No	landscape
`detail_level`	No	standard
`infographic_style`	No	auto_select
`slide_format`	No	detailed_deck
`slide_length`	No	default
`report_format`	No	Briefing Doc
`custom_prompt`	No
`question_count`	No
`difficulty`	No	medium
`language`	No
`focus_prompt`	No
`title`	No	Mind Map
`description`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.8May 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the required confirm parameter (must be True after user approval) and type-specific options. However, it doesn't mention whether creation is synchronous or asynchronous, or what the output format is (output schema exists).

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 long but well-structured with sections for args, type-specific options, common options, and examples. It front-loads the main purpose. Could be slightly more concise, but the structure aids readability.

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 the high complexity (22 params, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description does a good job covering creation behavior. It provides examples and explains type-specific parameters. It doesn't cover error handling or return values, but those may be in the output schema.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds extensive meaning for each parameter, especially artifact_type and type-specific options. It provides detailed explanations, defaults, and valid values for all 22 parameters.

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 it is a unified creation tool for NotebookLM studio artifacts, lists all supported artifact types, and provides examples. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like studio_delete and studio_revise.

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?

The description provides explicit usage context for creating any studio artifact and includes example calls. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, but the breadth of supported types makes it clear.

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