NotebookLM MCP

Create report

report_create

Generate a NotebookLM report from notebook sources in formats like Briefing Doc, Study Guide, Blog Post, or a custom prompt; confirm options first, then poll studio_status.

Instructions

Start generating a written report from the notebook's sources: a Briefing Doc, Study Guide, Blog Post, or your own brief with report_format "Create Your Own" and custom_prompt. 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
`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
`custom_prompt`	No	What the report should be, used when report_format is "Create Your Own"
`report_format`	No	Format: Briefing Doc, Study Guide, Blog Post, Create Your Own

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"
+}

Changed5 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 / custom_prompt / description

Previous value: -"Custom prompt (when format='Create Your Own')"New value: +"What the report should be, used when report_format is \"Create Your Own\""

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

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: states quota consumption, multi-minute latency, the exact no-op behavior of confirm=false (returns pending_confirmation), the artifact_id returned by confirm=true, and the non-obvious fact that this artifact has no downloadable file and must be opened in NotebookLM. That is exactly the context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: purpose first, then cost/workflow, then return-value caveat. Only mild redundancy with the schema's confirm description, and the long single-paragraph form makes the workflow steps slightly harder to scan than they could be.

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 generation tool with an output schema, the description supplies everything needed to call it safely: prerequisites, side effects, confirmation semantics, follow-up polling, and where the result is consumed. Nothing material is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value by linking report_format to the 'Create Your Own' option that requires custom_prompt, a relationship the per-field schema text does not make explicit. Minor: it does not mention language or source_ids scoping.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Start generating a written report from the notebook's sources') and enumerates the concrete formats available. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling studio generators (audio_overview_create, video_overview_create, quiz_create, etc.) because it names 'written report' and its formats.

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?

Explicitly instructs to 'agree on the options with the user first' because it consumes the user's quota and takes minutes, and describes the two-step workflow (confirm=false previews, confirm=true starts, then poll studio_status). It names the follow-up tool and the condition that triggers it.

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