NotebookLM MCP

Create flashcards

flashcards_create

Generate study flashcards from a notebook's sources after confirming options; poll status until the artifact is ready to open in NotebookLM.

Instructions

Start generating a set of study flashcards from the notebook's sources. Uses the user's NotebookLM quota and takes several minutes, so agree on the options with the user first: with confirm=false it does nothing and returns pending_confirmation. With confirm=true it returns the artifact_id; poll studio_status until that artifact is completed. This artifact has no download file: the user opens it in the notebook in NotebookLM.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`confirm`	Yes	Must be true to start generation. With false the tool only returns pending_confirmation and does nothing
`difficulty`	No	Difficulty: easy, hard, medium (default medium)
`source_ids`	No	Limit generation to these source IDs (from notebook_get); omit to use every source in the notebook
`notebook_id`	Yes	Notebook ID, as returned by notebook_list or notebook_create

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`status`	Yes
`message`	No	Human-readable outcome or next step
`artifact_id`	No	ID of the new artifact, as listed by studio_status

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": {
+    "artifact_id": {
+      "description": "ID of the new artifact, as listed by studio_status",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "message": {
+      "description": "Human-readable outcome or next step",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "enum": [
+        "success",
+        "pending_confirmation"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "status"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed4 schema fields changedv0.4.0Oct 20, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / confirm / description

Previous value: -"Must be true to start generation"New value: +"Must be true to start generation. With false the tool only returns pending_confirmation and does nothing"

changedInput schema / properties / difficulty / description

Previous value: -"Difficulty: easy, hard, medium"New value: +"Difficulty: easy, hard, medium (default medium)"

changedInput schema / properties / notebook_id / description

Previous value: -"The notebook ID"New value: +"Notebook ID, as returned by notebook_list or notebook_create"

changedInput schema / properties / source_ids / description

Previous value: -"Source IDs (omit for all)"New value: +"Limit generation to these source IDs (from notebook_get); omit to use every source in the notebook"

First observedv0.3.1Aug 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: consumes the user's NotebookLM quota, takes several minutes, confirm=false is a no-op returning pending_confirmation, confirm=true returns artifact_id, and the artifact has no downloadable file (viewed in-app). None of this is derivable from the annotation set.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the quota/time cost, followed by the confirm-gate behavior and the polling follow-up. Every clause carries actionable information.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a long-running, quota-consuming async generation tool this covers cost, latency, the confirmation contract, the completion-tracking path, and the fact that no download artifact is produced. An agent has everything needed to call and follow up correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters including the confirm gate and difficulty. The description largely restates the confirm behavior (pending_confirmation/artifact_id) rather than adding syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource: generating study flashcards from a notebook's sources. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling artifact creators (quiz_create, report_create, slide_deck_create) and names the scoping input (notebook sources).

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives a clear precondition ('agree on the options with the user first') and post-call workflow ('poll studio_status until that artifact is completed'). It stops short of explicitly contrasting with alternative artifact types (e.g. quiz_create) for the same notebook, so it is strong but not fully routing.

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