Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
notebooklm-api

notebooklm-api

by mcpware
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

list_documents

Retrieve a complete list of documents stored in a specified store to see what content is available for Q&A.

Instructions

List all documents in a store.

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": {
      "store_name": "<store_name>"
    },
    "name": "list_documents"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
store_nameYesStore resource name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, whether results are paginated, what fields are returned, or any authentication or scoping constraints beyond the store name. The word 'List' implies a read operation, but no behavioral detail is added.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. The core action and resource are front-loaded, and the store scoping is immediately clear.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the single parameter, no nested objects, and no output schema, the description is minimally viable but leaves clear gaps. It does not explain what a returned document looks like, whether the list includes metadata or full content, or how errors such as a nonexistent store are handled. An agent could call it correctly, but would lack important context.

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% for the single parameter, and the schema already describes store_name as 'Store resource name'. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable at baseline given full coverage.

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?

The description clearly states a specific action ('List') on a specific resource ('documents') scoped to a store. It is not a tautology and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_stores by specifying documents rather than stores.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as upload_document, delete_document, or ask. There is no mention of intended use cases, exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools