notion_list_workspacesLists the Notion workspaces cached on this Mac. Start here for Notion — its output feeds notion_list_databases / notion_list_pages / notion_search. Does not return workspace members: the names and emails of third parties are not part of listing workspaces.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | ||
| count | No | ||
| workspaces | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the data is 'cached on this Mac' (local, possibly stale) and explicitly excludes third-party member names/emails. This enriches the agent's understanding of what the operation returns and its source.
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?
Three sentences with zero redundancy: the first defines the action, the second provides entry-point guidance, the third preempts a likely failure expectation. It is concise, front-loaded, and every sentence adds distinct value.
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?
For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema available, the description covers the essential context: what it lists, where the data comes from, how it fits into the Notion tool family, and what it intentionally omits. Nothing else is needed for an agent to correctly invoke it.
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?
The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 because there is nothing to document. The description doesn't add param details, but none are needed. It correctly implies the tool takes no arguments by listing no parameters in its usage context.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Lists the Notion workspaces cached on this Mac.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling Notion tools by noting it feeds notion_list_databases / notion_list_pages / notion_search, and it clarifies what it does not do (workspace members). This is unambiguous and separates it from related tools.
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 explicitly says 'Start here for Notion' and names the downstream tools that consume its output, which tells the agent exactly when to choose this tool. It also gives a negative constraint, 'Does not return workspace members,' preventing misuse when member data is needed. This is explicit routing guidance with no inference required.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Many tools are clearly distinct per app (e.g., chrome_*, safari_*, m365_*), but there is notable overlap between generic file tools like `file_list` and `finder_list`, both listing files; `search_contacts` and `list_contacts` serve similar purposes; `report_friction` and `report_problem` both send feedback to the team. The large number of tools with similar purposes in different domains creates moderate ambiguity for an agent.
The naming convention is very consistent overall: most tools follow a `{app}_action` or `verb_noun` pattern (e.g., `chrome_click`, `create_calendar_event`, `list_reminders`). There are minor deviations like `lmcp_install_upgrade` (two verbs) and `complete_omnifocus_task` vs. `complete_reminder` (inconsistent verb placement). Still, the pattern is predictable and readable across the full set.
With 225 tools, the surface is extremely large and heavy. While it covers many distinct domains (browsers, mail, calendar, files, notes, reminders, video editing, web automation, etc.), the sheer number makes it hard to navigate and likely includes many rarely-used tools. This is far beyond the well-scoped range of 3-15 tools and feels excessive even for a 'local everything' MCP server.
For many app integrations, the tool set provides solid CRUD coverage (e.g., Calendar has create, read, update, delete; Apple Notes has create, read, update, list, search; OmniFocus has create, list, search, complete). However, some areas are incomplete: for example, there is no tool to create a new Mail folder or delete notes. The 'web' tools lack a clear update/delete for saved sessions. The suite is broad but has notable gaps within individual domains.