Skip to main content
Glama

Notion_connect

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Notion Query Database

notion_query_database
Read-onlyIdempotent

Query a Notion database with filters and sorting (e.g., status='Done', sort by date). Returns matching rows with property values.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sortsNoArray of sort objects (e.g., [{ "property": "Created", "direction": "descending" }])
filterNoNotion filter object (e.g., { "property": "Status", "select": { "equals": "Done" } })
page_sizeNoNumber of results to return (default 10, max 100)
database_idYesNotion database ID to query
start_cursorNoPagination cursor for next page of results

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
objectNoAlways 'list'
resultsNoArray of matching database rows (pages)
has_moreNoWhether more results exist
next_cursorNoPagination cursor for next page

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety profile is clear. Description adds that results include property values, but does not disclose pagination behavior or result limits, which are only in schema. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with key action and resource. No extraneous text. However, could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness to include pagination note.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Has output schema, so return values are covered. Description does not mention pagination or the need for required database_id. For a tool with 5 parameters including nested objects and pagination, the description is minimal but sufficient given schema coverage.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. Description mentions filters and sorting with a simple example but does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides. The example is essentially repeated from the input schema.

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?

Clearly states it queries a Notion database with filters and sorting, and returns matching rows. Distinguishes from siblings like notion_get_database or notion_get_page by emphasizing structured queries. However, could more precisely differentiate from notion_search.

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?

Provides examples but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Does not mention alternatives like notion_search for text search or notion_list_pages for simple listing. The context of filters and sorting implies structured queries, but lacking explicit direction.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Notion_connect toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route questions to the same 5,708 tools, with beta explicitly described as currently identical to the stable version. Prediction-market tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage) also blur together, and the Notion tools are a small island in a sea of unrelated Pipeworx utilities.

Naming Consistency3/5

The names are uniformly lowercase with underscores, but conventions are mixed: some use verb-first patterns (ask_pipeworx, generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency), others are noun-phrases (entity_profile, recent_changes, polymarket_edges), and domain prefixes are inconsistent (notion_*, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*, but bare bet_research, compare_entities, recall). It is readable but lacks a coherent naming scheme.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is already heavy, but the bigger issue is scope: the server is named Notion_connect yet only 5 of 36 tools relate to Notion. The rest span data research, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, AI visibility, npm auditing, and llms.txt generation — a grab bag far beyond any single purpose, with multiple redundant meta-tools inflating the count.

Completeness2/5

As a Notion connector it is severely incomplete: there is no create/update/delete for pages or databases, and no way to write content back to Notion — only read/search/query operations. For the broader Pipeworx surface, the tool set is sprawling but unfocused, so it is hard to identify a coherent domain where coverage could be considered complete.

Resources