Skip to main content
Glama
RPasquale

lightbulb-mcp

by RPasquale
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

notion_bulk_update_pages

DestructiveIdempotent

Update multiple Notion pages in one operation through a governed connector. Use project-bound authentication and idempotency keys to apply bulk changes reliably.

Instructions

Notion connector operation bulk_update_pages (platform tool notion.bulk_update_pages).

Routes only through the exact project/account governed connector authority.

Args: arguments: JSON string of arguments for the connector operation. project_id: Authenticated Project UUID. project_ref: Exact project correlation reference. connector_account_ref: Project-bound connector account alias. idempotency_key: Stable business-action identity. effect: Claimed read or write effect; Spring verifies it. approval_ref: Approved platform task UUID when resuming a write.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
effectNo
argumentsNo{}
project_idNo
project_refNo
approval_refNo
idempotency_keyNo
connector_account_refNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed6 schema fields changedv0.1.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / approval_ref
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Approval Ref"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / connector_account_ref
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Connector Account Ref"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / effect
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Effect"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / idempotency_key
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Idempotency Key"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / project_id
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Project Id"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / project_ref
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Project Ref"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true; the description adds useful context that this is an authority-gated route and that writes may need an approval_ref. It does not contradict annotations, but it stops short of describing concrete page-level side effects of the bulk update.

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 compact and well-structured as a short intro plus an args list, with no filler. The first line is somewhat redundant with the tool name, but the routing statement and parameter definitions are useful.

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 destructive, idempotent write tool with 0% schema coverage, the description is not complete enough to invoke correctly: it omits what the arguments JSON must contain for bulk_update_pages, the approval flow mechanics, and actual update semantics. The output schema covers return values, but input-side gaps are substantial.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the Args list adds short definitions to every parameter and clarifies the special roles of effect and approval_ref. However, the critical `arguments` field is described only as a JSON string for the connector operation, with no Notion-specific key structure or page-selection semantics, so correct invocation still depends on external connector knowledge.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the operation and platform tool, and the verb/resource are inferable from the name, but it never states what bulk updating pages actually does beyond quoting the name. It also does not differentiate from sibling tools like notion_bulk_status_update or notion_bulk_property_update.

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 when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided; the routing and approval constraints describe mechanism, not selection context. Sibling tools are never referenced, so an agent cannot decide when this generic bulk update is appropriate versus other Notion update tools.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools