NotebookLM MCP Server

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral context. It states 'Add pasted text as source' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether the operation is idempotent, rate limits, or what 'as source' means functionally. The description adds little beyond the basic action.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a structured Args section. It's appropriately sized with no redundant information, though the Args formatting could be more integrated with the main description.

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?

Given 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description partially compensates by listing parameters. An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations, it lacks critical context like error conditions, side effects, or success indicators.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all three parameters (notebook_id, text, title) with brief explanations, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain format constraints (e.g., UUID format for notebook_id, text length limits) or the significance of 'Optional title' defaulting to 'Pasted Text'.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Add pasted text as source') and identifies the target resource ('source' in a notebook). It distinguishes from siblings like notebook_add_drive and notebook_add_url by specifying text content, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other text-adding tools if they exist.

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 like notebook_create or notebook_add_url. The description implies it's for adding text content to an existing notebook, but doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., notebook must exist) or compare with other text-handling tools.

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