Set up a new prompt book configuration with a name, Notion API token, and database ID to enable centralized management of AI prompts stored in Notion.
Add a new prompt book configuration
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Name of the prompt book | |
| notion_token | Yes | Notion API token with access to the prompts database | |
| notion_database_id | Yes | ID of the Notion database containing the prompts |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a creation operation but does not mention side effects, validation of the Notion token, duplicate handling, or whether the new configuration becomes active.
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 a single efficient sentence with no wasted words and the core action is front-loaded. It is appropriately short, though the brevity does sacrifice explanatory value.
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?
For a simple three-parameter create operation with full schema coverage, the description is minimally viable. However, it omits any context about what a prompt book configuration is, what the tool returns, or how it fits with sibling tools like create_prompt_database.
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 each parameter. The description adds no additional semantic meaning about how the parameters relate to the prompt book configuration.
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 'Add a new prompt book configuration' clearly identifies a specific verb and resource. It is understandable on its own, though it does not actively distinguish itself from sibling tools like create_prompt_database or activate_prompt_book.
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 prerequisites, such as needing a Notion database first, or situations where another sibling like create_prompt_database would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.