NotebookLM MCP

Create quiz

quiz_create

Generate a multiple-choice quiz from notebook sources. Confirm options, then poll status and open the quiz in NotebookLM.

Instructions

Start generating a multiple-choice quiz 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
`question_count`	No	Number of questions (default 5)

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?

Goes beyond annotations by disclosing quota consumption, multi-minute latency, the confirm=false no-op, the artifact_id return, the need to poll studio_status, and the absence of a downloadable file. These operational details are exactly what an agent needs for a long-running write.

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?

Four compact sentences with no filler; the purpose and the critical confirm/polling behavior are front-loaded.

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 the output schema and annotations, the description covers the remaining agent-critical context: cost, latency, confirmation flow, polling handoff, and artifact access. Nothing essential is omitted.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents confirm, difficulty, question_count, source_ids, and notebook_id. The description restates confirm semantics but adds no new parameter-level details beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 the specific action (start generating) and resource (multiple-choice quiz from notebook sources), which distinguishes it from other studio creation tools such as flashcards_create or audio_overview_create. The description is front-loaded and specific.

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?

Provides clear procedural guidance: agree on options first, use confirm=false for a no-op preview, confirm=true to start. It does not explicitly name when to choose this over sibling creation tools, so it gives clear context rather than a full alternatives map.

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