collection_listList all native collections in your NotebookLM workspace to review available notebooks or projects. Use this to get an overview of existing collections before managing them.
List all native collections.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.14Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'List all native collections' clearly indicates a read-only operation with explicit scope. It does not describe pagination, ordering, or authentication, but for a zero-parameter list tool with an output schema, this is reasonably transparent.
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 a single short sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and object, and every word contributes to meaning.
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?
For a simple, zero-parameter list operation, the description captures the essential operation and scope. The output schema is present, so return-value structure need not be repeated in prose. However, it does not explain what 'native collections' means relative to drive sources or other collection types, which could leave slight ambiguity.
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?
The input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameters to document. Schema description coverage is effectively 100%, and no parameter-level semantics are needed. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List' + 'native collections'. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling mutation tools like collection_create, collection_edit, and collection_delete, and from notebook_list by specifying collections rather than notebooks. The qualifier 'native' adds useful scope precision.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention notebook_list for notebooks, source_list_drive for drive sources, or any exclusion such as filtering by workspace. An agent must infer selection from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.