notebooklm-mcp

get_usage

Read live account compute-meter usage, including five-hour and weekly quota percentages and reset times, to check remaining quota before long question or generation batches.

Instructions

Read the account’s live compute-meter usage (RPC-backed, account-scoped — no notebook). Returns the five-hour and weekly quota windows as percentages, their reset times, and a per-action table of what still has quota. status=disabled when the account has no meter. Use it to check headroom before a long batch of questions or generations.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_usage"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`data`	No	The tool payload on success. The exact shape depends on the tool.
`error`	No	Human-readable error message, present only when success is false.
`success`	Yes	Whether the tool call succeeded.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv4.8.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does substantial work: it declares the operation as a read, states it is live and RPC-backed, fixes the scope as account-level rather than notebook-level, and documents the 'status=disabled when the account has no meter' edge case. It does not mention authentication prerequisites or whether the call itself consumes quota, which are the remaining behavioral gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with identity and scope, then return shape, then the disabled edge case, then the usage trigger. Almost every clause earns its place, though 'RPC-backed' is implementation jargon of limited decision value to an agent.

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

Completeness4/5

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

This is a simple zero-parameter read with an output schema, so return-value explanation is not strictly required — and the description still summarizes the windows, reset times, and per-action table. Completeness is only slightly short on caller-side prerequisites such as auth state or cost of the call itself.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is no parameter meaning for the description to add or omit.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Read the account's live compute-meter usage') and immediately scopes it with 'account-scoped — no notebook', which separates it from the notebook-oriented siblings in the catalog. An agent can tell what this returns without opening the 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?

It gives an explicit trigger: 'Use it to check headroom before a long batch of questions or generations.' That is clear when-to-use guidance, but there is no when-not guidance and no named alternative for quota-related checks, so it stops short of full routing.

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