Uploads a local PDF, court filing, or Markdown file to a Google NotebookLM notebook as a documentary source, using the notebook ID and file path.
Sube un archivo local (PDF, escrito judicial, Markdown) como fuente documental a un cuaderno de Google NotebookLM.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | No | Título opcional para la fuente | |
| file_path | Yes | Ruta al archivo local a subir | |
| notebook_id | Yes | ID del cuaderno en NotebookLM |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It mentions accepted file types (PDF, escrito judicial, Markdown) and the target notebook, but says nothing about side effects, permissions, failure modes, or whether it appends or replaces sources.
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 wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core action, accepted formats, and target system.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits usage context, prerequisites, side effects, and any indication of what happens on success or failure, leaving the agent underinformed about how to invoke it correctly.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds only the notion of a local file upload and file types, but no additional syntax, constraints, or meaning beyond the schema itself. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb (Sube) and resource (archivo local) and the exact target (cuaderno de Google NotebookLM). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like notebooklm_create_notebook, notebooklm_query, and notebooklm_list_notebooks.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites, exclusions, or context of use. It only describes what it does, not when or why to choose it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.