Skip to main content
Glama

Related Servers

Alternatives to notebooklm-mcp

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      A 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.
      39
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Enables 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 npm
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Enables 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 npm
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      MCP 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 npm
      MIT

    TDQS

    A3.6/5.0

    Scored across 49 tools

    Disambiguation3/5

    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.

    Naming Consistency3/5

    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.

    Tool Count2/5

    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.

    Completeness4/5

    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.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessResponsive