NotebookLM MCP

Save NotebookLM cookies

auth_save_tokens

DestructiveIdempotent

Save pasted NotebookLM cookies, optional CSRF token, and session ID to ~/.notebooklm-mcp/auth.json, replacing stored values. Use when the user hands you cookies; never echo them back.

Instructions

Manual fallback: save NotebookLM cookies the user pasted, plus an optional CSRF token and session ID, to ~/.notebooklm-mcp/auth.json, replacing what is stored there. Returns a confirmation; the next call uses the new tokens. Prefer the CLI auth command. Use this only when the user hands you cookies, and never echo them back.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`cookies`	No	Cookie header string as copied from the browser ("SID=...; HSID=...; ..."); must include SID, HSID, SSID, APISID, SAPISID
`csrf_token`	No	CSRF token (SNlM0e); optional, extracted from the page when omitted
`session_id`	No	Session ID (FdrFJe); optional, extracted from the page when omitted

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	Yes
`message`	No	Human-readable outcome or next step

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.5.0Oct 20, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "message": {
+      "description": "Human-readable outcome or next step",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "const": "success",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "status"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

Addedv0.4.0Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the overwrite behavior is partly covered; the description usefully specifies what is destroyed (the existing ~/.notebooklm-mcp/auth.json contents), that the next call consumes the new tokens, and adds a security constraint about not echoing secrets. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose and destination are front-loaded, and most sentences carry distinct information (destination, replacement, confirmation, alternative, constraint). It is slightly dense with five clauses, but every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists so return values need no elaboration, annotations carry the safety profile, and the schema fully documents parameters; the description covers destination, overwrite semantics, and security handling. It is nearly complete, with only the sibling auth_refresh relationship left implicit.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and each parameter (cookies, csrf_token, session_id) is fully documented there, including the required SID/HSID/SSID/APISID fields. The description only restates that csrf_token and session_id are optional, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb (save) and resource (NotebookLM cookies plus optional CSRF/session IDs) and names the exact destination file (~/.notebooklm-mcp/auth.json), so the purpose is unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling auth_refresh, which is the nearest alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives an explicit alternative ('Prefer the CLI auth command') and a precise gating condition ('Use this only when the user hands you cookies'), plus a handling constraint ('never echo them back'). It frames itself as a manual fallback, so an agent knows both when to reach for it and when not to.

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