NotebookLM MCP

Add Google Drive source

source_add_drive

Add a Google Drive file to a NotebookLM notebook as a source using its file ID and MIME type. Creates a snapshot source that can be refreshed when the Drive file changes.

Instructions

Add a Google Drive file as a source, by its Drive file ID and MIME type; the signed-in Google account must be able to open the file. Returns the new source (id, title, type). The source is a snapshot: when the Drive file changes, refresh it with source_sync_drive. For a public web page use source_add_url instead.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "notebook_id": "<notebook_id>",
      "file_id": "<file_id>",
      "title": "<title>",
      "doc_type": "<doc_type>"
    },
    "name": "source_add_drive"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`title`	Yes	Title shown for the source in the notebook
`file_id`	Yes	Google Drive file ID, the part after /d/ in the file's URL
`doc_type`	Yes	MIME type of the Drive file, e.g. application/vnd.google-apps.document for a Google Doc or application/pdf
`notebook_id`	Yes	Notebook ID, as returned by notebook_list or notebook_create

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`source`	Yes
`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"
+    },
+    "source": {
+      "additionalProperties": false,
+      "properties": {
+        "id": {
+          "description": "Source ID",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "title": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "type": {
+          "description": "web_page, youtube, pasted_text, pdf, google_docs, google_slides_sheets, ... or unknown",
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "id",
+        "title",
+        "type"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "const": "success",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "status",
+    "source"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

Addedv0.4.0Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world write. The description adds context annotations cannot: the source is a snapshot that goes stale and must be refreshed via source_sync_drive, plus the account-level permission prerequisite. It doesn't state what happens on duplicate adds, which is the main remaining gap given idempotentHint=false.

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, zero filler, front-loaded with the action and required inputs before the constraints and alternatives. Every sentence carries distinct information: action, lifecycle, and routing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained; the brief '(id, title, type)' mention is harmless. With prerequisites, snapshot/lifecycle behavior, and sibling routing all covered, an agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly on the first try.

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% and each parameter already carries its own description (including the '/d/' hint for file_id and the MIME-type examples). The description only restates that file ID and MIME type are needed, adding no syntax or constraint beyond the schema. 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add a Google Drive file as a source') and pins the required identifiers (Drive file ID, MIME type). It also names the sibling it is not (source_add_url), so an agent can distinguish it without opening a schema.

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?

Gives the precondition ('the signed-in Google account must be able to open the file'), names the refresh path (source_sync_drive) for later changes, and routes public web pages to source_add_url instead. When-to-use, when-to-refresh, and the alternative are all explicit.

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