notebook_share_statusCheck a Google NotebookLM notebook's sharing settings and collaborators to verify who can access it. Use this to audit permissions and confirm sharing status before collaborating or sharing.
Get current sharing settings and collaborators.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notebook_id | Yes | Notebook UUID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.11.2Input schema / properties / notebook_id / descriptionAdded value: +"Notebook UUID"v0.9.1v0.8.9v0.7.7Input schema / properties / notebook_id / descriptionRemoved value: -"Notebook UUID"v0.6.13Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Get current...' clearly implies a read-only status operation rather than a mutation, but it does not mention permissions, session requirements, or explicitly state that no changes are made. It is minimally transparent but leaves some behavioral details to inference.
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?
A single sentence that gets straight to the operation and target resource. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.
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?
One parameter, an output schema, and a simple read operation make this a low-complexity tool. The description plus schema cover what the tool returns and what input is required, though the lack of usage guidance remains a minor gap.
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 single parameter is fully described in the schema as 'Notebook UUID,' so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema already provides the required meaning. A baseline 3 is appropriate here.
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 'Get' as a specific verb and identifies the exact resource: current sharing settings and collaborators. This clearly distinguishes the tool from mutating share siblings like notebook_share_public, notebook_share_invite, and notebook_share_batch, and from general notebook_get/notebook_describe.
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 is given on when to use this tool versus the other sharing tools or notebook_describe. The description states what the tool does but provides no condition, prerequisite, or 'use this when' cue.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.