notion_open_pageOpens a Notion page in the desktop app (deep link). Accepts a page id or title. Useful to let the user view or edit a page, or to pull an uncached page into the local cache.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | Yes | Page id (UUID) or title (partial, case-insensitive) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | No | ||
| opened | No | ||
| page_id | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the deep-link mechanism and the side effect of caching ('pull an uncached page into the local cache'), which goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). It also implies the app is launched, providing useful behavioral context.
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?
The description is only two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no redundant wording. Every clause adds 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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, parameter format, and use cases. It omits potential prerequisites (e.g., desktop app installation) but that's a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.
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 already comprehensively describes the 'page' parameter (UUID or partial title, case-insensitive). The description merely echoes this without adding new semantic detail, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 clearly states the action: 'Opens a Notion page in the desktop app (deep link).' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like notion_read_page (reads content) and notion_search (finds pages).
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 provides clear usage context: 'Useful to let the user view or edit a page, or to pull an uncached page into the local cache.' This implies when to use it and hints at benefits, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria.
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.