NotebookLM MCP

Sync Google Drive sources

source_sync_drive

DestructiveIdempotent

Re-import Google Drive sources to update notebook files with their current versions, replacing stored snapshots.

Instructions

Re-import Google Drive sources (added with source_add_drive) so the notebook uses the latest version of each file, replacing the stored snapshot. With confirm=false it does nothing and returns pending_confirmation; with confirm=true it syncs and returns how many sources were synced.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`confirm`	Yes	Must be true to sync. With false the tool only returns pending_confirmation
`source_ids`	Yes	IDs of the Drive sources to sync, from notebook_get
`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"
+}

Changed3 schema fields changedv0.4.0Oct 20, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / confirm / description

Previous value: -"Must be true to confirm sync"New value: +"Must be true to sync. 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"

changedInput schema / properties / source_ids / description

Previous value: -"Source IDs to sync"New value: +"IDs of the Drive sources to sync, from notebook_get"

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, but the description adds the concrete consequence: the stored snapshot is replaced. It also discloses the two return modes (pending_confirmation vs. count of synced sources). It stops short of covering failure modes or permission requirements.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, front-loaded with the destructive effect and then the confirm branch. Both sentences earn their place by conveying behavior not present in structured fields.

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, idempotent mutation with a full schema and an output schema, the description covers the essential what, the snapshot-replacement consequence, and the confirm gating. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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%, so the schema already documents confirm, source_ids and notebook_id. The description restates the confirm semantics rather than adding new syntax or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Re-import Google Drive sources') and names the originating sibling (source_add_drive) plus the effect ('replacing the stored snapshot'). An agent can distinguish this from source_add_drive and other source tools without opening any 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?

Clear context: use it to make the notebook use the latest version of files previously added via source_add_drive. It also routes behavior by flag ('with confirm=false it does nothing'). It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name a preferred alternative for other refresh cases, which keeps it below a 5.

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