Notion MCP

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: codex prompt generation, decision logging, Notion page operations (append, create, get, search), and project context retrieval. No overlaps.
Naming Consistency4/5
Names follow snake_case and use a <domain>_<action> pattern, but prefixes vary (codex_, mission_log_, notion_, project_). Within each domain, naming is consistent; overall pattern is readable but not fully uniform.
Tool Count5/5
8 tools is well-scoped for a Notion integration covering core operations (create, get, search, append) plus additional project context and decision logging. No redundancy.
Completeness3/5
Covers create, read, search, and append for Notion pages, but missing update and delete operations. Project context and decision logging are included, but the Notion surface is incomplete for full CRUD.
Average 3.4/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored. Lowest: 2.7/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on May 30, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds only 'Risk: read', which is redundant. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., performance, data scope) are disclosed beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (one sentence), which is concise but at the cost of missing critical details. It is front-loaded but under-specifies the tool's behavior and parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low schema coverage and absence of an output schema, the description fails to explain what the tool returns or what constitutes 'configured project context'. The 'requestingAgent' role is unclear, leaving the agent ill-equipped to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning neither the schema nor the description provides any explanation for the two parameters ('projectName', 'requestingAgent'). The agent receives no semantic hints about how to use these parameters.
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?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Retrieve') and resource ('configured project context'), with 'Risk: read' indicating a safe read operation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'notion_get_page' or 'project_list_apps'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The description lacks context on prerequisites, scenarios, or when not to use it, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds 'Risk: read', confirming it is a read-only operation. Annotations already set readOnlyHint=true, so there is no contradiction. However, the description does not disclose any additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two short sentences, but the brevity sacrifices informative content. It is front-loaded with the key action but lacks necessary details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is not complete. It does not explain return values, parameter details, or usage context, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but only mentions 'from configured project context and a current goal'. It does not explain the purpose of 'constraints', 'requestingAgent', or how 'goal' and 'projectName' relate. This is insufficient for an agent to understand parameter semantics.
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?
The description clearly states the tool generates a 'Codex-ready implementation prompt' from 'configured project context and a current goal'. The verb 'generate' and resource 'implementation prompt' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like notion_* or project_get_context. However, 'configured project context' is somewhat vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings, no conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives. It only states what the tool does, not when it is appropriate to invoke.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering safety. The description adds 'Risk: read' which is redundant. It does not disclose additional behavioral traits like whether it searches page titles only or full text, or if there is pagination or result limits.
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?
The description is very short (one sentence plus a note), which is concise. However, the 'Risk: read' note is unnecessary given annotations. Every word earns its place, but could be more informative without increasing length significantly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a search tool with no output schema and minimal parameter descriptions, the description is insufficient for an agent to understand return behavior, search scope, or limitations. It lacks details on results structure, pagination, or query capabilities.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds minimal semantic value. It mentions 'matching a query' for the query parameter but does not explain its syntax, supported features, or the purpose of 'requestingAgent'. The schema provides constraints but no semantics.
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?
The description clearly states it searches the connected Notion workspace for pages matching a query, which is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like notion_get_page (retrieve specific page) or notion_create_page (create new page).
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?
The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives. It only states 'Risk: read', which implies safe use, but lacks context such as 'Use this to find pages by keyword; use notion_get_page to retrieve full page content once found.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'Risk: read' which is consistent but adds minimal value. No additional behavioral context (e.g., rate limits, auth needs, output format) is provided beyond what annotations convey.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose. However, it could be enhanced with additional context without becoming verbose, such as mentioning the return format or common use cases.
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?
Given the tool is a simple get operation with good annotations, the description provides the essential action and risk. However, it lacks information about the return value (since no output schema exists), potential errors, and how to handle the 'pageId' format. The description is adequate but not fully complete for an agent to use without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the input schema provides no descriptions for parameters. The description mentions retrieving a page and its block content, which gives context for the pageId parameter, but the requestingAgent parameter is completely undocumented. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'retrieve' and the resource 'Notion page and its block content', providing a specific and unambiguous purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools like notion_append_to_page (write) and notion_create_page (write), and notion_search (search-based retrieval).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as notion_search. No context is provided about prerequisites, required permissions, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate non-destructive write (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds 'Risk: safe_write', clarifying the write is safe but doesn't elaborate on side effects, like which Notion page is updated or whether existing content is modified. Adds some context beyond annotations but could be more thorough.
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?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences, no filler, front-loaded with purpose. Every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 5 parameters, 3 required, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the return value, which Notion page the decision is logged to, or how the parameters should be used. This lacks completeness for an agent to use it reliably.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters, but it only covers the 'category' parameter implicitly via listing categories. It does not describe 'projectName', 'decisionTitle', 'decisionDetails', or 'requestingAgent', leaving their semantics unclear. This is a significant gap.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'log' and the resource 'decision to Notion', listing specific categories (architecture, product, business, security, implementation). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like notion_create_page or codex_generate_prompt, which have different purposes.
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?
The description implies usage when a decision needs to be recorded, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternatives. Given siblings include other Notion tools (append, create, get, search), the lack of exclusion criteria limits guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds 'Risk: safe_write', clarifying that it is a write operation but safe (no unintended damage). This extra context slightly raises transparency, though more details (e.g., permission requirements) could be added.
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?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences, no wasted words. Every sentence adds value (purpose and safety hint). It is front-loaded with the action and location, making it easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters with no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no explanation of content format (e.g., Markdown), the description is too brief. It lacks details on default behavior (e.g., root page if parentPageId omitted), return values, and prerequisites, making it incomplete for effective invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions). The description mentions 'parent page' which relates to the optional 'parentPageId', but provides no further meaning for parameters like 'title', 'content', or 'requestingAgent'. It fails to compensate for missing schema descriptions, leaving agents to guess formats or constraints.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'create' and the resource 'Notion page', and specifies the location context ('under the configured root page or provided parent page'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'notion_append_to_page' (which appends to an existing page) and 'notion_get_page' (which retrieves).
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?
The description implies use for creating new pages, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'notion_append_to_page' for adding content to an existing page). No when-not or alternative scenarios are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds value beyond annotations by explicitly stating 'without replacing or deleting content' and noting 'Risk: safe_write'. This provides context that complements the destructiveHint=false annotation. It does not disclose behavior on missing page IDs or rate limits, but the key behavioral traits are covered.
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?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence plus a two-word phrase. Every word serves a purpose, and key information is front-loaded. No unnecessary content.
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?
For a simple append tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential action and safety hint. However, it lacks information about error handling, prerequisites (e.g., page existence), or return values, leaving some gaps for complete agent understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description only mentions 'content' generically and does not explain the purpose or format of pageId, content, or requestingAgent. No additional parameter semantics are provided, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'Append' and the resource 'content to an existing Notion page', distinguishing it from sibling tools like notion_create_page and notion_get_page. It explicitly notes that content is added without replacing or deleting, which clarifies its unique function.
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?
The description implies usage for appending content to an existing page, and mentions 'safe_write' as a risk indicator. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives like notion_create_page, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds 'Risk: read', which is consistent but adds little value beyond annotations.
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?
Extremely concise: one clear sentence plus a brief risk note. Every phrase earns its place with no redundancy.
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?
With no output schema and simple purpose, the description adequately conveys the tool's function. Could be slightly improved by specifying output format (e.g., array of strings), but realistically sufficient for a list operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has zero parameters, so baseline is 4. Description adds no parameter info, but none is needed since schema coverage is 100% and no parameters exist.
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?
The description clearly states the tool returns app/project names for the workspace, using specific verb 'Return' and resource 'app/project names'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like project_get_context or notion_search which have different purposes.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only implies its usage for listing app/project names, but does not provide when-not-to-use or mention sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![notion-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Limelight-Management-Group/notion-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Limelight-Management-Group/notion-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![notion-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Limelight-Management-Group/notion-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Limelight-Management-Group/notion-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Limelight-Management-Group/notion-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server