Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
notion-full-mcp

notion-full-mcp

by cphoskins
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

delete_block

DestructiveIdempotent

Deletes a specific Notion block by ID, enabling precise removal of unwanted content from a page.

Instructions

Delete a specific block by ID.

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>"
    },
    "name": "delete_block"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
block_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so safety framing is covered structurally. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating that it deletes — it does not say whether child blocks are cascaded, whether deletion is permanent or recoverable, or what permissions are required.

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?

One short sentence with the verb and selector front-loaded and no wasted words. Its brevity is a strength for structure but reflects under-specification rather than deliberate economy.

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?

This is a destructive mutation with no annotations-derived recovery story and no described side effects on block children or page structure. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the consequences of the call — the most important thing here — are absent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the single block_id parameter is documented only by its name and type. The description's "by ID" is a marginal restatement and adds no format, source, or lookup guidance (e.g., where to obtain a valid block ID).

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Delete a specific block") plus the selector ("by ID"), so an agent immediately knows the operation. It does not differentiate from any sibling, but no sibling in the list is a competing block-deletion tool, so ambiguity is low.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as restore_page (recovery) or update_block_text, and no prerequisites or warnings. The agent must infer entirely from the tool name that this is a permanent removal rather than a soft delete.

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