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

notion-full-mcp

by cphoskins
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

list_comments

Read-only

Fetches every comment on a given Notion page or block so you can review discussions and feedback associated with that content.

Instructions

List all comments on a page or 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>"
    },
    "name": "list_comments"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
block_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the target scope (page or block) but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or whether "all" is literally complete - a notable gap for a list operation that claims completeness.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler and the resource stated first. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification given the unaddressed pagination and ID-format questions.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the tool is structurally simple with one required param. Still, for a list tool the description leaves pagination/limit behavior and the page-vs-block ID contract unstated.

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?

The single parameter block_id has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. Saying comments live "on a page or block" usefully implies a page ID can be passed as block_id, but it never states this explicitly nor describes accepted ID formats.

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 uses a specific verb ("List") plus resource ("comments") and scopes it to a page or block, which cleanly separates it from the write-side sibling create_comment. It stops short of naming or contrasting any sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of the create_comment alternative for posting a comment, and no note on whether this returns all comments or a paginated subset. Usage is only inferrable from the verb.

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