Skip to main content
Glama
goonoo

MCP Notion Upload Server

by goonoo
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

50%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation2/5

    The two tools have overlapping purposes that could cause confusion. 'upload_and_attach_file_to_page' includes uploading as part of its workflow, while 'upload_file_to_notion' is a standalone upload tool. An agent might struggle to choose between them when they just need to upload a file without attaching it to a page.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent snake_case naming pattern with clear verb_noun structure. 'upload_and_attach_file_to_page' and 'upload_file_to_notion' are descriptive and follow the same naming convention throughout.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only 2 tools, this server feels thin for a Notion integration. A typical Notion MCP server would include more operations like creating pages, retrieving content, updating blocks, or searching databases. The limited tool count suggests incomplete coverage of the domain.

    Completeness2/5

    The server is severely incomplete for a Notion integration. It only covers file upload operations, missing essential CRUD operations for pages, databases, blocks, and other core Notion resources. There's no way to create, read, update, or delete basic Notion objects beyond file attachments.

  • Average 4.3/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior3/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions authentication requirements (Notion API token with environment variable fallback), potential errors (file existence, size limits, API failures), and the return value purpose. However, it doesn't specify rate limits, timeout behavior, or what happens to existing files with the same name.

    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?

    The description is well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Raises) and front-loaded purpose statement. While efficient, the 'Raises' section could be more concise by listing error conditions without the generic 'Exception' prefix. Every sentence adds value, but minor verbosity exists.

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

    Completeness4/5

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

    Given no annotations, 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, and an output schema present, the description does a good job covering purpose, parameters, errors, and return value interpretation. However, it doesn't mention file format restrictions, size limits in concrete terms, or how the upload ID relates to Notion's internal structure, leaving some gaps for a mutation tool.

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

    Parameters5/5

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

    With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters: 'file_path' (path to upload), 'notion_token' (authentication with env var fallback), and 'file_name' (optional custom name with default behavior). Each parameter's purpose and constraints are clearly documented beyond what the bare schema provides.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose5/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states the specific action ('Upload a file') and target resource ('to Notion using the Notion API'), distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'upload_and_attach_file_to_page' which appears to have a different purpose. The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines4/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    The description provides clear context about when to use this tool (uploading files to Notion) and mentions an alternative tool ('upload_and_attach_file_to_page') for obtaining URLs, but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or compare it directly with the sibling. The guidance is helpful but not fully comprehensive regarding alternatives.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

  • Behavior4/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behaviors: it outlines a multi-step workflow, mentions authentication via token or env var, specifies return values including expiry details, and notes exceptions like file existence and size limits. It doesn't cover rate limits or detailed error handling, but adds substantial context beyond basic function.

    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?

    The description is well-structured with sections for purpose, workflow steps, args, returns, raises, and an example. It's appropriately sized but could be more front-loaded; the initial sentence is clear, but some details in later sections are verbose. Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste, though slight trimming might improve conciseness.

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

    Completeness5/5

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

    Given the tool's complexity (multi-step workflow, 5 parameters, no annotations, but with output schema), the description is highly complete. It covers purpose, parameters, return values (aligned with output schema), errors, and includes an example. The output schema handles return structure, so the description doesn't need to duplicate that, making it comprehensive for agent use.

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

    Parameters5/5

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

    Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It does so by explaining all 5 parameters in the 'Args' section, detailing their purposes, optionality, and defaults (e.g., 'notion_token' optional if env var set, 'file_name' defaults to original). This adds clear meaning beyond the bare schema, effectively documenting parameter usage.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose5/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states the specific action: 'Upload a file to Notion and attach it to a specific page, returning download URL.' It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'upload_file_to_notion' by specifying the attachment to a page and returning metadata, making the purpose explicit and differentiated.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines3/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    The description implies usage through the example and parameter explanations, such as when to provide 'notion_token' or use environment variables. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over 'upload_file_to_notion' or other alternatives, leaving the context somewhat implied rather than clearly stated.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

mcp_notion_upload MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp_notion_upload MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/goonoo/mcp_notion_upload'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server