Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

DataToRAG

by com.datatorag
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

notion-mcp__notion_create_comment

Destructive

Adds a comment to a Notion page, to a block, or as a reply in an existing discussion. Takes exactly one of page_id, block_id and discussion_id, and the text as plain text. A new comment on a selection of text is not possible through Notion's API; a reply to an existing one is, by its discussion_id. Returns the comment's id, discussion_id, created_time, created_by, text and parent.

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": {
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "notion-mcp__notion_create_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYesThe comment as plain text. Over 2,000 characters is split into several text pieces.
accountNoOptional email address of the connected account to use (e.g. 'user@gmail.com'). If omitted, the default account is used.
page_idNoThe page's Notion id, with or without dashes, or a Notion URL that contains it (the id is read from the URL).
block_idNoThe block's Notion id, with or without dashes, or a Notion URL that contains it (the id is read from the URL).
discussion_idNoThe discussion to reply in, from notion_get_comments.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag a write operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), so the description is not contradicting them, but it could have clarified why a comment is marked destructive. It does add value beyond the annotations by naming the API constraint on text-selection comments and by enumerating the returned fields, which the absent output schema leaves undocumented.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the targeting rule, then the API caveat and return shape. Every sentence carries information that is not redundant with the schema or annotations.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Covers purpose, targeting rules, text format, a key API limitation and the return payload even though no output schema exists. Minor omissions such as the optional 'account' parameter and permission/visibility implications of posting a comment keep it at 4.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description contributes the mutual-exclusivity rule among page_id, block_id and discussion_id, which the schema itself does not express. It also restates that text is plain text, reinforcing the schema's character-splitting note.

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?

States a specific verb ('Adds a comment') and the three distinct targets (page, block, reply in a discussion), which is enough for an agent to separate it from notion_get_comments, notion_update_comment and notion_delete_comment. The scope is precise rather than tautological.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives an explicit parameter-selection rule ('Takes exactly one of page_id, block_id and discussion_id') and states the API limitation that a new comment on a text selection is impossible while a reply is possible via discussion_id. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling update/delete comment tools, which keeps it below a 5.

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

All DataToRAG toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources