Fetch Notion pages, images, or web URLs as compact Markdown by @ref, Notion ID, assignment name/period, or link. Use part or section to handle long pages and follow @ref links.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| part | No | ||
| target | Yes | ||
| section | No | only this heading and its subsections |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that the description adds real behavioral context: content is returned as compact markdown, links are rendered as [text](@ref) or [img: ..](@ref), and @refs must be followed to retrieve linked content — details an agent cannot infer from 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Four dense sentences, purpose front-loaded first, then target forms, then link rendering, then long-page handling — no filler. The telegraphic style keeps it short, though the parenthetical examples and semicolon-joined clauses make it slightly run-on.
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?
No output schema exists, and the description supplies the return shape (compact markdown with @ref links) plus the long-page escape hatch. Combined with annotations covering read-only and open-world behavior, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly; only the missing search-first routing is a minor gap.
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 coverage is only 33% (just `section`), so the description carries most of the burden and does so well for `target`: @ref, Notion URL/id, assignment name/period with examples, or http(s) URL. `part` is only weakly explained ('use part or section' for long pages), leaving its integer semantics and relationship to `section` partly implicit.
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?
States a precise verb (read) plus the exact resource types (Notion page, image, any web URL) and the output form (compact markdown). Against siblings search and list_assignments, the fetch-content role is unambiguous without opening any schema.
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?
It gives operational guidance for a given call (which target forms are accepted, follow @ref links, use part/section for long pages) but never states when to pick this tool over search or list_assignments, nor any prerequisite such as needing a @ref found via search. Usage is implied rather than framed against alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.