Retrieves NotebookLM's generated summary and keywords for a specific source, helping you understand its content before deeper reading or analysis.
Resumen y palabras clave que NotebookLM genera para una fuente.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source_id | Yes | ID de la fuente (obtenlo con list_sources). | |
| notebook_id | Yes | ID del notebook (obtenlo con list_notebooks). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond them – no note on whether a guide must be pre-generated, whether it can be absent, or what triggers generation, which is exactly the kind of context a read tool like this needs.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification for a tool with an output schema and pre-generation semantics.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. However, for a tool whose availability may depend on whether NotebookLM has generated a guide for the source, the description leaves an important operational question unaddressed.
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 coverage is 100% and both parameters carry their own guidance on where to obtain the IDs, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description contributes no additional meaning about the IDs or their relationship.
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 identifies the resource (a source) and the specific content returned (summary and keywords generated by NotebookLM), which distinguishes it from siblings like read_source (full text) and get_source_outline (structure). It lacks an explicit verb such as 'retrieves', but the resource+content pairing is specific enough to select on.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as read_source, get_source_outline, or source_stats. The only routing hints live in the parameter schema (pointers to list_sources/list_notebooks), not in the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.