Check server and NotebookLM session status—mode, cache, and authentication—to verify connectivity and troubleshoot access before reading or querying sources.
Estado del servidor y de la sesión con NotebookLM (modo, caché, autenticación).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so safety is covered. The description contributes useful scope detail by naming the three state areas reported (mode, cache, authentication), but says nothing about side effects, latency, or what a failure state looks like.
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 sentence with no filler, and the resource scope is front-loaded before the reported facets. Nothing in it is wasted.
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?
For a zero-parameter diagnostic call with an output schema documenting return values, the description need only convey scope, which it does. The only shortfall is the absent routing guidance relative to sibling status/cache tools.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline of 4 applies.
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 names a specific resource (server and NotebookLM session) and enumerates the facets reported (mode, cache, authentication), which distinguishes it from siblings such as get_usage or clear_cache. It lacks an explicit verb ("get/report"), but the intent is unambiguous.
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 indication of when to call this versus alternatives like get_usage, clear_cache, or sync_notebook, nor any stated prerequisites or follow-up actions. The agent must infer that this is a diagnostic entry point.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.