Skip to main content
Glama
gemmy-jaeheon

gemmy-notion-mcp

by gemmy-jaeheon
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

notion_users

List Notion users, retrieve a specific user by ID, or get the bot user to manage user details and support access checks.

Instructions

Perform various user operations (list, get, get bot)

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
payloadYesA union of all possible user operations. Each operation has a specific action and corresponding parameters. Use this schema to validate the input for user operations such as listing, getting a single user, and getting the bot user. Available actions include: 'list_users', 'get_user', and 'get_bot_user'. Each operation requires specific parameters as defined in the corresponding schemas.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but discloses almost nothing beyond the operation names. It does not mention permissions, pagination behavior, rate limits, whether listing includes bot users, or any other operational traits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single short sentence with no wasted text, but it is under-specified for a three-action union schema. Being concise is good here, but the terseness leaves important context to the schema.

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?

The input schema is rich and fully describes the available actions and parameters, which covers most invocation needs. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more behavioral context, so it is only minimally complete.

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%, so the schema already documents the action, page_size, start_cursor, and user_id parameters in detail. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond listing operation categories, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names the resource (users) and lists the operations (list, get, get bot), making the tool’s purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the resource name is sufficient to distinguish it from pages, blocks, database, and comments.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor about prerequisites or exclusions. The action names imply usage, but the description itself provides no routing context.

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