Retrieve a single Notion block by ID to inspect its type and content.
Retrieve a single block by ID.
Args: block_id: The ID of the block
Returns: Block object with type and content
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| block_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only states the return shape. It does not disclose error behavior for invalid or inaccessible IDs, permission requirements, or whether lookup is scoped to a workspace. The only behavioral signal is the word 'Retrieve,' implying a non-mutating read.
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 leading sentence is front-loaded and efficient, but the Args/Returns docstring blocks are boilerplate that partly duplicate the input and output schemas. Adequate but not tight.
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?
An output schema exists, so the Returns section is redundant and return semantics are covered elsewhere. However, for a retrieval tool with no annotations and an undocumented parameter, the definition leaves gaps around ID sourcing, block types, and failure modes.
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 0%, so the description is expected to compensate, but 'The ID of the block' merely restates the parameter name. No format, validation, or source-of-ID detail (e.g., where an agent obtains a block ID) is added.
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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve a single block by ID'), which is clear and self-contained. It implicitly separates itself from get_block_children (plural/child-listing) and get_page (page-level), though it does not explicitly name those siblings.
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 like get_block_children, get_page, or query_database. The description gives no preconditions, no exclusions, and no routing hints for a tool in a crowded retrieval family.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.