notebooklm-mcp
Related Servers
Alternatives to notebooklm-mcp
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceA thin MCP wrapper around the unofficial Google NotebookLM Python client, enabling notebook management, source handling, chat, artifact generation, deep research, and sharing via MCP tools.39MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceEnables MCP clients to drive Google NotebookLM for citation-backed Q&A over your sources, plus generation of audio, video, infographics, reports, presentations, data tables, flashcards, quizzes and mind maps, using multi-account rotation with automatic re-authentication. It also exposes the same engine as a local HTTP REST API for no-code and custom integrations.3,211 npmMIT
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceProvides CLI and MCP server to programmatically access Google NotebookLM, enabling AI assistants to create notebooks, add sources, generate podcasts, and more, with support for both personal and enterprise accounts.4133 PyPIMIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceEnables citation-backed Q&A and full Studio content generation (audio, video, infographics, reports, presentations, data tables, flashcards, quizzes, mind maps) against Google NotebookLM, with multi-account rotation and auto-reauth. Serves both MCP clients like Claude Code and Cursor and a 33-endpoint HTTP REST API for no-code tools such as n8n, Zapier, and Make.3,211 npmMIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceMCP server that lets CLI agents (Claude, Codex, Cursor) chat directly with Google NotebookLM for zero-hallucination answers based on user's own notebooks.3,211 npmMIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables interaction with Google NotebookLM through a unified CLI and MCP server, featuring automatic multi-browser authentication and support for notebook queries, source management, notes, and audio generation.MIT
TDQS
Scored across 49 tools
Descriptions clarify most boundaries (e.g., search_passages vs notebook_ask, library_list vs notebook_list), but several tools overlap heavily: library_add/library_discover/notebook_create, content_list/source_list/note_list/library_list, and multiple delete tools. Descriptions also reference tools by stale alternate names, increasing misselection risk.
All names are snake_case, but verb placement is inconsistent (library_add vs rename_source, share_notebook, get_chat_history) and some use noun_noun patterns (library_stats, server_health). Descriptions repeatedly refer to tools by different names (add_notebook, ask_question, get_health, setup_auth), creating a confusing dual naming scheme.
49 tools is far beyond the 15-tool guideline and includes many narrow operations (revise_slide, check_source_freshness, manage_labels, share_notebook) alongside broad workflow tools. The surface is too large for easy scanning and invites tool-selection errors.
Coverage is broad: library CRUD/search, notebook create/list/delete/share, source add/read/rename/delete/freshness, chat ask/history, content generation/export/download, notes, labels, and research. Minor gaps remain (e.g., no note update/delete, limited source content update), but core lifecycle operations are present.