Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

DataToRAG

by com.datatorag
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

notion-mcp__notion_update_data_source

Destructive

Changes one Notion data source (the table inside a database): its title, its property schema, or whether it is in the trash. The schema change is a map keyed by a property's current name: null removes the property for every row, {"name": "New"} renames it, and a type (alone or with name) changes its type and settings, in the forms notion_create_database takes. A select's options list replaces the whole list. Changing a type can leave existing values unreadable in the new type. Returns the data source's id, title, in_trash and property schema.

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": {
      "data_source_id": "<data_source_id>"
    },
    "name": "notion-mcp__notion_update_data_source"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleNoThe data source's title as plain text. Over 2,000 characters is split into several text pieces; the limit is 200,000.
accountNoOptional email address of the connected account to use (e.g. 'user@gmail.com'). If omitted, the default account is used.
in_trashNotrue moves the data source to the trash; false restores it.
propertiesNoProperty changes keyed by current name: null removes, {"name": "..."} renames, a type or {"type": ..., settings} changes the type.
data_source_idYesThe data source'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

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations flag destructive=true but say nothing about blast radius; the description supplies it: null property removal deletes that property 'for every row', a select's option list 'replaces the whole list', and a type change 'can leave existing values unreadable in the new type'. It also states what is returned (id, title, in_trash, property schema), so the agent can predict consequences and result shape.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the action and scope, then escalating into the risky schema-mutation semantics and finally the return value. Dense but every sentence carries information; the create_database cross-reference sentence is the only slightly awkward construction.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a five-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers what it mutates, the nested-map encoding for the hardest parameter, the destructive side effects, and the return fields. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely is missing.

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 the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by explaining the properties map's three payload shapes and pointing to notion_create_database for the nested type forms, which the schema does not spell out. The 'replaces the whole list' semantics for select options is meaning the schema omits.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb+resource: 'Changes one Notion data source (the table inside a database)' and enumerates the three mutable facets (title, property schema, trash). The parenthetical distinguishes a data source from a database, which is the key sibling confusion. It never names an alternative tool by name, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: you infer it is for mutating an existing data source, and the warning about type changes hints at caution. There is no explicit 'use X instead when...' routing against notion_create_database, notion_update_view, or notion_get_database, and no prerequisites or permission notes.

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