Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

DataToRAG

by com.datatorag
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

notion-mcp__notion_update_view

Destructive

Changes one Notion database view's name, filter, sorts or layout configuration. null clears the filter or the sorts; omitted fields keep their values. A view's type is not changed through Notion's API. Returns the view in the shape notion_create_view returns.

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": {
      "view_id": "<view_id>"
    },
    "name": "notion-mcp__notion_update_view"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoThe view's new name, shown on its tab.
sortsNoA list of Notion property sort objects, sent unchanged. null clears the sorts.
filterNoA Notion filter object, sent unchanged. null clears the filter.
accountNoOptional email address of the connected account to use (e.g. 'user@gmail.com'). If omitted, the default account is used.
view_idYesThe view's id, or a database URL whose ?v= names the view.
configurationNoNotion's view configuration object, sent unchanged.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations only flag destructiveHint=true, and the description supplies the concrete destructive path: passing null clears the filter or the sorts, while omitted fields retain their values. That partial-update contract plus the API-level limitation on changing view type is real value beyond the structured fields, though it does not mention permissions or whether replacing a filter/sort list is wholesale substitution.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then null semantics, then the API limitation, then the return shape. No filler and no repetition of the tool name.

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 a six-parameter mutation tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the mutation contract, the destructive null behavior, and the return shape by reference to notion_create_view. Remaining gaps are minor: the account parameter and whether filter/sorts are replaced wholesale rather than merged are left to the schema.

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 per-parameter baseline is 3, and the description mostly restates what the schema already documents (null clears filter/sorts, configuration is the layout object). The one genuinely additive point is the omitted-versus-null distinction, which clarifies partial-update semantics across all fields rather than any single parameter.

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 (changes) against a precisely scoped resource (one Notion database view) and enumerates the mutable surface: name, filter, sorts, layout configuration. It also rules out what cannot change ('A view's type is not changed through Notion's API'), which lets an agent separate this from notion_create_view without opening either 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?

Usage is only implied: the description positions the tool as the mutation path for an existing view, and the type-immutability note functions as a soft exclusion. It never says when to prefer this over notion_create_view, nor what prerequisites (view must already exist, permissive access) must hold before calling.

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