NotebookLM MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'List all notebooks' implies a read operation, it doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like pagination, sorting, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what 'all' means in practice (e.g., access permissions).

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first states the core purpose, the second explains the parameter. No wasted words, and the structure is front-loaded with the essential information.

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 simple parameter structure and presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description covers the basics adequately. However, for a tool with no annotations and multiple sibling alternatives, it lacks sufficient behavioral and contextual guidance to be considered complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining the single parameter's purpose ('Maximum number of notebooks to return') and default value. This adds meaningful context beyond what the bare schema provides about the integer parameter.

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 notebooks'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'notebook_query' or 'mind_map_list', which could cause confusion about when to choose this specific listing tool.

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 like 'notebook_query' or 'notebook_get'. With multiple notebook-related siblings available, the absence of usage context leaves the agent without clear selection criteria.

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