read_notion_pageRead a shared Notion page as Markdown using its page ID or link; if a database ID is provided, return its data sources instead. Read-only and free.
Read a Notion page the user shared with Hermoso, as markdown (pageId or a Notion link). A database id answers with its data sources instead. Read-only, free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pageId | Yes | page id or Notion link |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.454Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint, so the description focuses on what they don't cover: the return is markdown, the call is free (no credit cost), and a database id returns its data sources rather than page content — a genuinely non-obvious behavior.
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?
Two short sentences, zero filler, with the resource and output format front-loaded and the edge case and cost note trailing. Every clause earns its place.
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?
With no output schema and only one parameter, the description covers the essentials: what is returned (markdown), the cost (free), and the database-id edge case. Only a pointer to id discovery (list_notion_pages) is missing.
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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents 'page id or Notion link', so the parenthetical in the description merely restates the schema. Baseline 3 applies; no extra format or example 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?
States a specific verb+resource ('Read a Notion page') plus the output form ('as markdown'), which cleanly separates it from list_notion_pages, save_to_notion and append_to_notion_page. The database-id caveat further sharpens the scope.
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?
Usage is implied by the precondition 'the user shared with Hermoso' and by the database-id behavior note, but no sibling is named and there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance (e.g., use list_notion_pages to discover ids first).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.