notebooklm-mcp

by gracelee087

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

tag

Add, remove, or set labels on one or more notebooks to organize and categorize your research materials.

Instructions

Add/remove tags on one or more notebooks. mode in {"add","remove","set"}.

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_ids": "<notebook_ids>",
      "tags": "<tags>"
    },
    "name": "tag"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`mode`	No	add
`tags`	Yes
`notebook_ids`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It reveals the three modes but does not explain the effect of 'set' (e.g., does it replace all existing tags?), consequences of removal, reversibility, or permission requirements. For a mutation-capable tool, this is a significant gap.

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 sentence that front-loads the main action and target. Every phrase is informative, with no filler or redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema lowers the need to describe return values, and the parameters are simple. However, the lack of annotations and the ambiguous 'set' mode leave the description incomplete for a mutation tool, especially regarding side effects and failure behavior. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate; it adds the allowed mode values and clarifies that tags are applied to one or more notebooks. However, it leaves 'set' semantics and potential constraints on tag values or duplicate handling unaddressed, so it only partially compensates.

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 ('Add/remove') and names the resource ('tags on one or more notebooks'), clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings that handle notebooks, sources, or research. The mention of modes ('add','remove','set') further clarifies its scope.

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?

The description implies usage for managing tags on notebooks, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or mentions alternatives. It is self-evident enough for a tagging operation, yet lacks exclusions or context about when it should be preferred over related notebook tools.

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

tag