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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Create') but doesn't mention permissions required, whether the creation is reversible, what happens on failure, or any rate limits. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence and parameter details in a structured 'Args' section. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 the tool's complexity (a simple creation with one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling or side effects, which are important for a mutation tool with no annotations.

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 meaningful context for the single parameter 'title' by describing it as 'Optional title for the notebook', which clarifies its purpose beyond the schema's basic type and default. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this adequately compensates, though it could specify format constraints (e.g., length limits).

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 ('Create') and resource ('a new notebook'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not differentiate this tool from other creation tools like 'data_table_create' or 'quiz_create' that also create different types of resources, so it doesn't reach the highest 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. With sibling tools like 'notebook_add_drive' or 'notebook_add_text' that modify existing notebooks, there's no indication of prerequisites or contextual usage, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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