Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

DataToRAG

by com.datatorag
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

notion-mcp__notion_create_view

Destructive

Adds a view to a Notion database: a table, board, list, calendar, timeline, gallery, form, chart, map or dashboard over one of its data sources, with an optional filter, sorts and layout configuration in Notion's JSON. Returns the view's id, name, type, database_id, data_source_id, url, filter and sorts. The view id is what notion_query_data_source takes as view_id.

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": {
      "database_id": "<database_id>",
      "data_source_id": "<data_source_id>",
      "name": "<name>",
      "type": "<type>"
    },
    "name": "notion-mcp__notion_create_view"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesThe view's name, shown on its tab.
typeYesThe view's layout, one of the listed types.
sortsNoA list of Notion sort objects, sent unchanged.
filterNoA Notion filter object, sent unchanged, in the form notion_query_data_source takes.
accountNoOptional email address of the connected account to use (e.g. 'user@gmail.com'). If omitted, the default account is used.
database_idYesThe database's Notion id, with or without dashes, or a Notion URL that contains it (the id is read from the URL).
configurationNoNotion's view configuration object, sent unchanged; its type matches the view's type (for example a board's group_by).
data_source_idYesThe data source the view shows's Notion id, with or without dashes, or a Notion URL that contains it (the id is read from the URL).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this is a mutating, potentially destructive call; the description adds nothing about why it is flagged destructive, whether it requires write/admin permission, or what happens on failure. It does usefully list the returned fields (id, name, type, database_id, data_source_id, url, filter, sorts), which substitutes for the missing output schema — that is the main behavioral value added.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the type vocabulary, then the return/id contract. No filler, no restating the tool name, and the most agent-relevant fact (the view id feeds notion_query_data_source) is placed last as a deliberate closing hook.

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?

For an eight-parameter mutation with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the essential shape: what it creates, the type space, which JSON blobs are passed through, and what comes back in the response. The remaining gap is the destructiveHint warning and any permission/account requirements, but the core calling contract is complete.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all eight parameters including the type enum and the 'sent unchanged' Notion JSON objects. The description only restates that filter, sorts and layout configuration are passed as Notion JSON, and adds the one genuinely new cross-reference that the filter matches the form notion_query_data_source takes. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Adds a view to a Notion database') and then enumerates the view types ('table, board, list, calendar, timeline, gallery, form, chart, map or dashboard') plus what the view sits on (a data source). This is enough for an agent to distinguish it from notion_update_view and notion_query_data_source without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It provides a useful downstream pointer — 'The view id is what notion_query_data_source takes as view_id' — which tells the agent where this fits in a create-then-query workflow. However, it never says when to use this versus notion_update_view, nor does it state prerequisites (e.g. the data source must already exist, or required permissions). Usage is implied rather than stated.

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