Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
notebooklm

notebooklm

by dfelix-net
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

generate_infographic

Create a visual infographic from a NotebookLM notebook and its sources; add optional instructions to guide the output.

Instructions

Gera um infográfico no NotebookLM.

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>"
    },
    "name": "generate_infographic"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
notebook_idYes
instructionsNoCrie um infográfico informativo.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

D1.6/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and discloses nothing. It does not say whether generation is long-running/asynchronous (as infographic generation typically is), whether it overwrites or appends, whether the notebook must already contain sources, or what happens on failure.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

It is a single short sentence, so structurally clean, but that brevity is under-specification rather than conciseness — there is no useful content to front-load.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a generative tool with no annotations, no output schema, and two undocumented parameters, the description supplies none of the context an agent needs to invoke it correctly or predict its behavior.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% for two parameters, and the description mentions neither notebook_id nor instructions. With zero compensation from the description, an agent cannot tell which notebook is targeted or what the default instruction string implies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Gera um infográfico'), which distinguishes it from siblings like generate_mind_map or generate_slide_deck by artifact type. However, 'no NotebookLM' adds no differentiation since every sibling presumably operates there, and nothing indicates it acts on a specific notebook.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, no mention of alternatives among the many other generate_* siblings. The agent is left to guess when an infographic is appropriate versus a slide deck, summary report, or mind map.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools