notebooklm-mcp-rpc

Poll research status

research_poll

Read-only

Check the status and results of research tasks in a notebook without blocking. Returns task status, summaries, and discovered URLs or reports.

Instructions

Non-blocking check on every research task in a notebook. Returns each task's status, the synthesized summary if any, and the discovered results (URLs + titles for fast research, markdown reports for deep).

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": {
      "notebook": "<notebook>"
    },
    "name": "research_poll"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`notebook`	Yes	Notebook UUID.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true (safe read) and openWorldHint=true (no side effects). The description adds that it is non-blocking and details the response content (status, summary, URLs/titles, markdown reports), which is beyond the annotations and provides valuable behavioral context.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys purpose, behavior, and return values without redundancy. It is front-loaded with 'non-blocking check' and efficiently packs key details.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, clear annotations), the description is complete. It explains the non-blocking nature, what it checks, and the format of results. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently covers the return content.

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 coverage is 100% (one parameter, 'notebook' described as 'Notebook UUID'). The description does not add extra semantics or constraints beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's verb (poll/check), resource (research tasks in a notebook), and scope (every task, returns status, summary, discovered results). It differentiates from siblings like research_start and research_wait by specifying it is non-blocking and returns results directly, making its purpose distinct.

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 for checking progress after starting research tasks, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like research_wait (blocking) or research_start (initiating). No exclusions or context signals are provided, leaving some ambiguity.

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

Deploy Server