NotebookLM MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose critical details like pagination, sorting, error handling, or what 'list all' entails (e.g., if it returns all at once or requires iteration). This leaves behavioral traits inadequately covered.

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

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

The description is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose in the first sentence. The Args section is structured but could be integrated more seamlessly. There's no wasted text, though it might benefit from slightly more detail given the lack of annotations.

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

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

Given 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage and an output schema present, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter but lacks depth on usage, behavior, and output interpretation, making it incomplete for optimal agent guidance without relying heavily on the output schema.

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

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

The description adds minimal semantics by specifying 'Notebook UUID' for the 'notebook_id' parameter, but with 0% schema description coverage and only 1 parameter, this is basic. It doesn't explain format constraints or usage context beyond what's implied, aligning with the baseline for low parameter count.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all mind maps in a notebook'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'notebook_list' or 'source_list_drive', which reduces it from a perfect score.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no mentions of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'notebook_list' or 'mind_map_create', leaving usage context unclear.

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