Skip to main content
Glama
awkoy

notion-mcp-server

append_block_children

Add child blocks to a specific parent block in Notion to organize or expand content efficiently.

Instructions

Append child blocks to a parent block in Notion

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
blockIdYesThe ID of the block to append children to
childrenYesArray of blocks to append as children

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function that executes the append_block_children tool logic by calling the Notion API to append child blocks to a specified block.
    export const appendBlockChildren = async (
      params: AppendBlockChildrenParams
    ): Promise<CallToolResult> => {
      try {
        const response = await notion.blocks.children.append({
          block_id: params.blockId,
          children: params.children,
        });
    
        return {
          content: [
            {
              type: "text",
              text: `Successfully appended ${params.children.length} block(s) to ${params.blockId}`,
            },
            {
              type: "text",
              text: `Block ID: ${JSON.stringify(response, null, 2)}`,
            },
          ],
        };
      } catch (error) {
        return handleNotionError(error);
      }
    };
  • Registers and dispatches the append_block_children action within the blocks operation tool handler by calling the specific appendBlockChildren function.
    case "append_block_children":
      return appendBlockChildren(params.payload.params);
  • Zod schema defining the input parameters for the append_block_children tool: blockId (string) and children (array of text block requests).
    export const APPEND_BLOCK_CHILDREN_SCHEMA = {
      blockId: z.string().describe("The ID of the block to append children to"),
      children: z
        .array(TEXT_BLOCK_REQUEST_SCHEMA)
        .describe("Array of blocks to append as children"),
    };
  • Part of the BLOCKS_OPERATION_SCHEMA defining the discriminated union for the append_block_children action including its literal action name and params reference.
      .literal("append_block_children")
      .describe("Use this action to append children to a block."),
    params: z.object(APPEND_BLOCK_CHILDREN_SCHEMA),
  • Import statement registering the appendBlockChildren handler for use in the blocks operation dispatcher.
    import { appendBlockChildren } from "./appendBlockChildren.js";
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs an append operation but doesn't mention whether this requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens on failure, rate limits, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and complex nested parameters (children array with multiple block types), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. The schema complexity demands more contextual information than provided.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (blockId and children) thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining blockId format or children structure. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Append child blocks') and target ('to a parent block in Notion'), providing specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'batch_append_block_children' or 'retrieve_block_children', which would require explicit comparison for a score of 5.

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 versus alternatives like 'batch_append_block_children' for multiple operations, 'create_page' for new pages, or 'update_block' for modifying existing blocks. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Related Tools

Latest Blog Posts

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/awkoy/notion-mcp-server'

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