NotebookLM MCP

Add text source

source_add_text

Add text or a local file as a source to a NotebookLM notebook, returning the new source ID, title, and type for later querying.

Instructions

Add text as a source: pass it in content, or point file_path at a local file (content wins if both are set). A file_path outside the server's working directory and the OS temp directory is refused; read such a file yourself and pass content. Returns the new source (id, title, type pasted_text). For a web page or YouTube video use source_add_url; for a Drive file, source_add_drive.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`title`	Yes	Title shown for the source in the notebook
`content`	No	Text to add. Takes precedence over file_path
`file_path`	No	Local file to read the text from, under the server's working directory or the OS temp directory
`notebook_id`	Yes	Notebook ID, as returned by notebook_list or notebook_create

Output Schema

TableJSON 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

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only mark it as non-read-only, non-idempotent and open-world. The description adds non-obvious behavioral facts beyond that: the content-vs-file_path precedence rule, the security refusal for paths outside the working directory/temp dir, and the shape of the created record (id, title, type pasted_text).

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: what it does, the two input modes with a precedence tiebreak and a failure escape hatch, then the sibling routing. No filler and the core behavior is 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?

With an output schema present the return value need not be spelled out, and everything an agent needs to invoke correctly — input precedence, sandbox limits, and which sibling to use instead — is covered.

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 four parameters are already documented. The description largely restates what the schema says (content takes precedence, file_path must be under the working/temp directory), adding no new syntax or format guidance, 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?

States a precise verb+resource ('Add text as a source') and immediately names the two sibling tools it is NOT for (source_add_url for web/YouTube, source_add_drive for Drive files). An agent can distinguish this from every adjacent add tool 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?

Explicit routing rules are given: URL/YouTube content goes to source_add_url, Drive files to source_add_drive, and there is a concrete fallback instruction (read out-of-sandbox files yourself and pass content) for a case that would otherwise fail.

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