notebooklm-mcp-cli

Server Info

server_info

Check installed version, authentication status, and available MCP capabilities to identify updates and resolve login issues.

Instructions

Get version, auth status, and conservative MCP capability visibility.

AI assistants: If update_available is True, inform the user that a new version is available and suggest updating with the provided command.

auth_status is the result of an AuthHealthChecker probe. The checker runs a multi-probe strategy (homepage fetch + API fallback) with 30-second TTL caching and mtime-based bypass on auth-file changes. The reported value may therefore be up to 30 seconds old, and an external nlm login is picked up within one check cycle without waiting for the TTL to expire.

auth_status meanings:

"configured" — homepage (or API fallback) check passed; credentials are good. Cached credentials may be reported as configured for up to 30 seconds.
"not_configured" — no credentials are stored (first-time setup).
"stale" — credentials are known-bad (expired or past the 7-day heuristic). Operations will fail; ask the user to run nlm login to refresh.
"unverified" — the check could not be completed (network error, timeout, non-200 response). Cached credentials may still work for actual API calls, so do not assume the user needs to re-auth.
"error" — unexpected exception inside the check itself.

Returns: dict with version info: - version: Current installed version - latest_version: Latest version on PyPI (or None if check failed) - update_available: True if a newer version is available - auth_status: configured | stale | unverified | not_configured | error - update_command: Command to run to update - mcp_capabilities: Built-in tool groups visible in this server process - provider_capabilities: Explicitly unprobed provider/account capabilities

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.11.5Sep 18, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It explains the caching behavior, the 30-second staleness window, the mtime-based bypass, and the exact meaning of each auth_status value, including edge cases like unverified credentials still working.

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?

The description is longer than average, but most of the length is justified by detailed auth_status semantics and actionable assistant instructions. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, though the return-field listing is partially redundant with the existing output schema.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The description is complete for a no-parameter informational tool. It explains what the tool returns, how to interpret each auth_status value, and what actions the assistant should take in different scenarios. The output schema covers the structured return details, so nothing critical is 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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and the empty schema fully documents the lack of inputs.

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?

The description clearly states that the tool retrieves version, auth status, and MCP capability visibility, using a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools, but the resource is distinct enough that no direct comparison is necessary.

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 gives strong conditional guidance, such as informing the user when update_available is True and telling the assistant to have the user run `nlm login` when auth_status is stale. It also warns against assuming re-auth is needed when auth_status is unverified. It does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like refresh_auth, but the behavioral guidance is clear.

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