NotebookLM MCP

Create infographic

infographic_create

Generate a single infographic image that visually summarizes a NotebookLM notebook's sources. Confirm options first; generation uses quota and takes minutes.

Instructions

Start generating an infographic: a single image that summarises the notebook's sources visually. 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. Once completed, studio_status gives an image download_url.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`confirm`	Yes	Must be true to start generation. With false the tool only returns pending_confirmation and does nothing
`language`	No	BCP-47 language code such as en, es or fr; omit for NotebookLM's default
`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
`orientation`	No	Orientation: landscape, portrait, square
`detail_level`	No	Level of detail: concise, detailed, standard
`focus_prompt`	No	Optional instruction on what to focus on or emphasise, e.g. "the methodology section"

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"
+}

Changed6 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 / detail_level / description

Previous value: -"Details: concise, detailed, standard"New value: +"Level of detail: concise, detailed, standard"

changedInput schema / properties / focus_prompt / description

Previous value: -"Focus prompt"New value: +"Optional instruction on what to focus on or emphasise, e.g. \"the methodology section\""

changedInput schema / properties / language / description

Previous value: -"BCP-47 language code"New value: +"BCP-47 language code such as en, es or fr; omit for NotebookLM's default"

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

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond annotations: it consumes NotebookLM quota, takes several minutes, requires a two-step confirmation flow (confirm=false returns pending_confirmation; confirm=true returns artifact_id), and requires polling studio_status until completion. This goes well beyond what the annotations disclose.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage guidance, then the two-phase workflow. No filler; every sentence contributes critical 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?

Given that an output schema exists and annotations cover safety signals, the description is complete: it explains the asynchronous generation flow, the confirmation requirement, and the polling step needed to retrieve the result. No essential invocation detail is missing.

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 all seven parameters are fully documented in the schema itself. The description only reiterates the confirm behavior and does not add new meaning beyond the schema for other parameters like orientation, detail_level, or focus_prompt.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Start generating an infographic: a single image that summarises the notebook's sources visually.' It distinguishes the artifact type from other creative outputs (audio, video, slides, reports), though it does not explicitly contrast with those sibling tools.

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?

It provides clear usage context: agree on options first, use confirm=false for a dry run, confirm=true to start generation, then poll studio_status. It does not, however, explicitly state when to choose an infographic over a sibling tool like slide_deck_create.

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