NotebookLM MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies a write operation ('Add') but doesn't specify permissions needed, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on failure (e.g., duplicate URLs). This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 parameter details. It's efficient with minimal waste, though the parameter section could be integrated more seamlessly. No extraneous information is included.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description provides basic purpose and parameter names but lacks behavioral context and detailed usage guidelines. An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, but overall completeness is mediocre for a mutation tool.

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 both parameters ('notebook_id' and 'url') with brief explanations, adding basic meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't detail constraints (e.g., URL format, UUID validation), leaving gaps that lower the score from a baseline of 4 for zero parameters.

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 URL as source') and specifies the resource type ('website or YouTube'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'notebook_add_text' or 'notebook_add_urls', which would require explicit comparison to achieve a perfect score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., notebook must exist), exclusions (e.g., invalid URL types), or comparisons to siblings like 'notebook_add_urls' for batch operations, leaving the agent without contextual usage cues.

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