NotebookLM MCP

Delete notebook

notebook_delete

DestructiveIdempotent

Permanently delete a NotebookLM notebook and all its contents after explicit confirmation; with confirm=false it only returns pending_confirmation.

Instructions

Permanently delete a notebook and everything in it. With confirm=false it does nothing and returns pending_confirmation; with confirm=true it deletes and returns a confirmation message. This cannot be undone: name the notebook to the user and get explicit approval first.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`confirm`	Yes	Must be true to delete. With false the tool only returns pending_confirmation
`notebook_id`	Yes	Notebook ID, as returned by notebook_list or notebook_create

Output 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": {
+      "enum": [
+        "success",
+        "pending_confirmation"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "status"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.4.0Oct 20, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / confirm / description

Previous value: -"Must be true to confirm deletion"New value: +"Must be true to delete. With false the tool only returns pending_confirmation"

changedInput schema / properties / notebook_id / description

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

First observedv0.3.1Aug 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

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 safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value by spelling out the confirm two-phase flow (returns pending_confirmation vs performs deletion), the irreversibility ('This cannot be undone'), and an explicit approval requirement. It doesn't mention permission/scope needs, so not a full 5.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the irreversible action, then the confirm mechanics, then the safety instruction. Every sentence earns its place with no restatement of the name or title.

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 destructive two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations covering the safety hints, the description supplies the remaining needed context: irreversibility, confirm behavior, and the approval precondition. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely 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%, and both parameters (notebook_id, confirm) are already documented in the schema with the same confirm semantics. The description adds no format or syntax 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.

Purpose5/5

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

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Permanently delete a notebook') and states the full scope ('everything in it'), immediately distinguishing it from siblings like notebook_rename or notebook_get. An agent can tell what this does and how destructive it is without opening the schema.

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 gives clear preconditions: name the notebook to the user and get explicit approval before invoking, and explains the confirm=true/false gate. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives (e.g., notebook_rename for non-destructive edits), so it stops short of full when/when-not routing, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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