NotebookLM MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that CSRF and session ID are 'auto-extracted' from request_body or request_url, which adds useful context about the tool's automation behavior. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this operation is idempotent, what permissions are required, potential side effects, or error handling. The description provides some behavioral insight but leaves significant gaps.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by an organized Args section. Each parameter gets a concise explanation. There's minimal waste, though the repetition of 'auto-extracted' could be slightly streamlined. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose stated first.

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 complexity of authentication handling with 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description does a reasonable job but has gaps. It explains parameter purposes and auto-extraction behavior, but doesn't cover the output (though an output schema exists), error conditions, or security implications. For a tool dealing with sensitive authentication tokens, more comprehensive guidance would be beneficial.

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 for 5 parameters, the description must compensate, and it does so effectively. It provides clear semantic meaning for all parameters: 'cookies' is explained as coming from 'Cookie header from Chrome DevTools get_network_request', and deprecated parameters are clearly marked with their auto-extraction sources. The description adds substantial value beyond the bare schema, though it could provide more detail on parameter formats or constraints.

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 tool's purpose: 'Save NotebookLM cookies' with the verb 'save' and resource 'cookies'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on authentication token management rather than content creation or notebook operations. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with any specific authentication-related siblings since none appear in the list.

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 implies usage context through the mention of 'Chrome DevTools get_network_request', suggesting this tool should be used when extracting authentication data from browser network requests. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is helpful but not comprehensive.

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