notebooklm-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

studio_revise

Update existing slide decks and other artifacts by providing new instructions. Apply revisions directly to your NotebookLM content.

Instructions

Revise an existing slide deck (and any revisable artifact) with new instructions.

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>",
      "artifact_id": "<artifact_id>",
      "instructions": "<instructions>"
    },
    "name": "studio_revise"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`artifact_id`	Yes
`notebook_id`	Yes
`instructions`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a mutation ('revise') but does not state side effects, reversibility, permissions, or what 'revisable artifact' entails. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It delivers the core purpose immediately, though the parenthetical is slightly vague. Overall, it is highly concise and well-structured.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description covers the basic purpose and clarifies the instructions parameter, but lacks parameter details and behavioral context. With an output schema present and only 3 required params, it is borderline adequate. The absence of annotations and low schema coverage leaves gaps, so a 3 is appropriate.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The description adds clarity to the 'instructions' parameter ('with new instructions') but does not explain notebook_id or artifact_id. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description should compensate more, but the parameter names are self-explanatory. Partial compensation leads to a mid-range score.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description uses a specific verb 'Revise' with a clear resource: 'an existing slide deck (and any revisable artifact)'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like studio_create, which creates new artifacts. The scope is clearly stated.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implies usage context: for revising an existing artifact, not for creating new ones. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, so it lacks explicit exclusions. The context is clear enough, hence 4.

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