Retrieve a specific Notion block by ID to access its content and metadata. Optionally extract only needed fields to reduce token usage.
Retrieves a block by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| extract | No | Response fields to extract. If omitted, returns recommended fields: ['content_saved_to', 'id']. Use ['none'] to return all fields. | |
| block_id | Yes | Block ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Retrieves' implies read-only intent, but the description does not disclose response behavior, extract effects, error cases, or permissions. It adds little beyond the operation name itself.
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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word earns its place.
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?
The tool is simple enough that the current description is minimally usable, but with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves sibling differentiation and expected-return context to inference. A sentence clarifying block vs. block-children retrieval would meaningfully improve completeness.
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 block_id and extract clearly. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieves a block by ID.' This clearly identifies a single-block lookup operation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like notion_retrieve_block_children or notion_delete_block, so it is clear but not fully distinguishing.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that children should be fetched with notion_retrieve_block_children, pages with notion_retrieve_page, or that update/delete operations have dedicated tools. Selection is left entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.