Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
notion-mpm

notion-mpm

by bobmatnyc
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

update_block

Update the content of an existing Notion block by providing its block ID and new block data.

Instructions

Update the content of an existing block.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "block_id": "<block_id>",
      "block_data": "<block_data>"
    },
    "name": "update_block"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
block_idYesBlock UUID to update
block_dataYesDict with block type key and updated content. E.g., {"paragraph": {"rich_text": [{"type": "text", "text": {"content": "New text"}}]}}

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it does not mention whether updates are full replacements or merges, whether write permissions are required, what happens if the block does not exist, or any return value. It only implies mutation via '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 a single efficient sentence with a clear subject-verb-object structure and no filler. It is concise, though perhaps too sparse given the need for additional usage and behavioral 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is disproportionately thin. It lacks context about update semantics, failure modes, permissions, and how it relates to sibling tools, even though parameters are well covered by the schema.

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%, with block_id and block_data both described including an example. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, 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.

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'existing block', distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_block, delete_block, append_block_children, and update_page. It is specific enough about the action, though it does not elaborate on what 'content' encompasses.

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 alternatives such as append_block_children or update_page. There are no explicit exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual hints beyond the action itself.

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