notebooklm-api

upload_document

Upload a document to a store for question answering with cited sources. Supports PDF, DOCX, TXT, HTML, CSV, and more.

Instructions

Upload a document to a store. Supports PDF, DOCX, TXT, HTML, CSV, and more. Waits for processing to complete before returning.

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>",
      "file_path": "<file_path>"
    },
    "name": "upload_document"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`file_path`	Yes	Absolute path to the file on disk
`store_name`	Yes	Store resource name (from create_store)
`display_name`	No	Display name for the document (defaults to filename)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Aug 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Without annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that uploads are synchronous by saying 'Waits for processing to complete before returning,' but it does not disclose failure behavior, overwrite semantics, size limits, or what the response contains.

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 concise sentences deliver the core action, supported formats, and a key behavioral guarantee with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is somewhat thin: it omits return value, prerequisite store existence, and error conditions. The synchronous processing note helps, but an agent is left guessing about what happens after a successful upload.

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 input schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds format support context tied to file_path but does not materially enrich parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 states a specific action ('Upload a document to a store') with a clear resource and target. It also enumerates supported formats, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_store or list_documents.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage through 'Upload a document to a store' and the schema notes store_name comes from create_store, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisite or follow-up steps.

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

Deploy Server