Easy Notion MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the server converts properties using the database schema, which adds useful behavioral context beyond basic creation. However, it lacks details on permissions required, error handling (e.g., invalid properties), or response format, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage instructions and an example, all in three concise sentences. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second explains parameter handling, and the third provides a practical reference. No wasted words.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the creation action, parameter usage, and references a sibling tool for context, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, or what the tool returns, which are important for a mutation tool with 2 parameters.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds value by explaining that 'properties' should be key-value pairs converted by the server, with an example illustrating usage, which clarifies semantics beyond the schema's generic 'Key-value property map'. This compensates well, though it doesn't detail 'database_id' further.

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 verb ('Create') and resource ('new entry in a database'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_database_entries' (plural) and 'create_database' (different resource), though not explicitly named. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from 'update_database_entry' in terms of operation type beyond the obvious 'create' vs 'update'.

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 context on when to use this tool: for creating entries with property key-value pairs, and it references 'get_database' to see available properties and options, offering an alternative for discovery. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., vs 'add_database_entries' for bulk operations or 'update_database_entry' for modifications), missing full sibling differentiation.

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