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. While it mentions the prerequisite condition, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions are needed, what happens on failure, or rate limits. The description is minimal beyond the basic usage guidance.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement, usage guideline, and parameter explanations in just four sentences. Every sentence earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with the most important guidance first.

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 that there's an output schema (which handles return values) and the description covers all parameters, the main gap is behavioral transparency. For a tool that performs imports (potentially a write operation), the description should ideally mention permission requirements or side effects, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining all three parameters: notebook_id (Notebook UUID), task_id (Research task ID), and source_indices (Source indices to import with default behavior). This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema types, though it doesn't provide format examples or constraints.

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 ('Import discovered sources') and target ('into notebook'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like research_start and research_status by focusing on the import phase, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all sibling tools.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Call after research_status shows status="completed".' This clearly indicates when to use this tool versus alternatives, establishing a prerequisite condition for proper invocation.

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