NotebookLM Retrieval MCP

list_notebooks

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve the IDs and titles of notebooks visible to the connected account or allowlist so you can discover which notebooks are available for querying.

Instructions

List notebook IDs and titles visible to this server's account and optional notebook allowlist.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_notebooks"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 19, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact beyond them – results are filtered by account visibility and an optional allowlist – but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or result limits.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the returned fields are named before the scoping qualifier. Slightly compressed wording around 'optional notebook allowlist' costs it a perfect mark.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the one thing structured data cannot: the visibility scope governing what comes back. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly appears to be missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The schema is empty and there is no parameter syntax the description could or should explain; the passing mention of an 'allowlist' refers to server-side configuration, not a call argument.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb (List) and resource (notebook IDs and titles) plus the visibility scope (server account, optional allowlist). It is clearly a listing tool, though it never differentiates itself from siblings like notebook_summary, which returns different data about the same resource.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for enumerating notebooks, and the visibility scoping hints at when results may be empty. There is no statement of when to prefer it over notebook_summary or ask, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server