Skip to main content
Glama
jkkitakita

Notion Uploader MCP

by jkkitakita
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Notion Uploader MCP

Model Context Protocol (MCP) サーバーで、CursorのチャットからNotionページに画像やファイルをアップロードできます。

機能

  • ローカルファイルをNotionページにアップロード

  • 複数の添付方法をサポート:

    • image: ページ内に画像ブロックとして追加

    • file: ページ内にファイルブロックとして追加

    • cover: ページのカバー画像として設定

    • icon: ページのアイコンとして設定

  • データベースプロパティへの添付

  • 大容量ファイルのマルチパートアップロード対応（20MB以上）

  • キャプション追加機能

Related MCP server: MCP Notion Upload Server

セットアップ

1. Notion APIトークンの取得

  1. Notion Integrations にアクセス

  2. "New integration" をクリック

  3. インテグレーションを作成し、APIトークンをコピー

  4. アップロード先のNotionページにインテグレーションを招待

2. 依存関係のインストール

cd tools/notion-uploader-mcp
npm install

3. ビルド

npm run build

4. 環境変数の設定

.envファイルを作成し、Notion APIトークンを設定:

cp .env.example .env
# .envファイルを編集してNOTION_TOKENを設定

または、環境変数として設定:

export NOTION_TOKEN=secret_XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

5. MCP設定への追加

プロジェクトルートの .mcp.json に以下を追加:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "notion-uploader": {
      "type": "stdio",
      "command": "node",
      "args": ["./tools/notion-uploader-mcp/dist/server.mjs"],
      "env": {
        "NOTION_TOKEN": "${NOTION_TOKEN}"
      }
    }
  }
}

使用方法

Cursorのチャットで、upload_to_notion ツールが利用可能になります。

パラメータ

  • file_path (必須): アップロードするファイルの絶対パス

  • page_id_or_url (必須): NotionページのIDまたはURL

  • attach_as (オプション): 添付方法

    • "image" (デフォルト): 画像ブロックとして追加

    • "file": ファイルブロックとして追加

    • "cover": ページカバーとして設定

    • "icon": ページアイコンとして設定

  • property (オプション): データベースのファイルプロパティ名

  • caption (オプション): ファイルのキャプション

使用例

# 画像をページに追加
upload_to_notion(
  file_path: "/path/to/image.png",
  page_id_or_url: "https://notion.so/your-page-id",
  caption: "プロジェクトのスクリーンショット"
)

# ページカバーとして設定
upload_to_notion(
  file_path: "/path/to/cover.jpg",
  page_id_or_url: "your-page-id",
  attach_as: "cover"
)

# データベースプロパティに添付
upload_to_notion(
  file_path: "/path/to/document.pdf",
  page_id_or_url: "database-page-id",
  property: "添付ファイル"
)

開発

開発モード

TypeScriptファイルを直接実行:

npm run dev

ビルド

TypeScriptをJavaScriptにコンパイル:

npm run build

トラブルシューティング

  1. NOTION_TOKEN not found: 環境変数が正しく設定されているか確認

  2. Page not found: ページIDが正しいか、インテグレーションが招待されているか確認

  3. Permission denied: インテグレーションに適切な権限があるか確認

ライセンス

プロジェクトのライセンスに従います。

Available Tools

2 tools
upload_to_notionC

Upload a local file to Notion and attach it to a page

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
captionNoCaption for the uploaded file
propertyNoDatabase 'files' property name (attach to a property instead of appending a block)
attach_asNoAttach as an image/file block, or page cover/iconimage
file_pathYesAbsolute path to the file to upload
page_id_or_urlYesNotion page ID or page URL (NOT a database view URL)

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions only the high-level action, without addressing side effects (e.g., whether it creates a block or updates a property), permission requirements, error behavior, or the implications of different `attach_as` values. This is a minimal disclosure for a mutation-like operation.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action and avoids filler, making it easily scannable.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, multiple attachment modes including image/file/cover/icon, and an optional property binding) and the lack of an output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the different attachment modes, why one might choose a property versus a block, or how it relates to the sibling tool. The schema covers parameters, but the description should provide broader contextual guidance.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema itself documents parameter meanings and constraints. The description adds little beyond the schema—it does not clarify the relationship between `page_id_or_url`, `property`, or `attach_as` choices, but that is adequately covered by structured fields.

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 clearly states the action ('Upload a local file to Notion') and target ('attach it to a page'), using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish this tool from its sibling `upload_to_notion_at`, which likely offers a related but different attachment behavior.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool rather than the sibling `upload_to_notion_at`, nor does it mention prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases. It is purely a statement of function without contextual direction.

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

upload_to_notion_atB

Upload a file and insert an image/file block immediately AFTER a placeholder or a specific block_id

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
captionNoCaption for the uploaded file
block_idNoAppend after this block ID directly
propertyNoDatabase 'files' property name (attach to a property instead of appending a block)
attach_asNoAttach as an image/file block, or page cover/iconimage
file_pathYesAbsolute path to the file to upload
placeholderNoAnchor token placed in the document (e.g. {{IMG_PLACEHOLDER:1:slug}})
page_id_or_urlYesNotion page ID or page URL (NOT a database view URL)
remove_placeholderNoIf true and placeholder mode, delete the placeholder block after inserting

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states it uploads and inserts. It omits side effects such as placeholder removal (despite the remove_placeholder parameter), permission needs, or failure behavior. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that captures the core action without extraneous words. It is highly scannable and efficient.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The tool has 8 parameters and no output schema or annotations, yet the description provides minimal context. It fails to mention attach_as modes, property attachment, or placeholder removal, forcing the agent to rely entirely on the schema without high-level guidance.

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 baseline is 3. The description does mention placeholder and block_id conceptually, but the schema already provides detailed descriptions for all parameters, and the description adds no extra semantic value.

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 states a specific action: uploading a file and inserting a block after a placeholder or block_id. It clearly distinguishes from the sibling 'upload_to_notion' by adding the positional 'after' behavior.

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 its purpose (inserting at a specific location) but does not explicitly state when to use it over 'upload_to_notion' or provide alternative references. No guidance about exclusion scenarios is given.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 2 tool updatesv0.1.0
    • First observedupload_to_notion
    • First observedupload_to_notion_at
Deploy Server
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Scored across 2 tools

Disambiguation3/5

Both tools perform uploads to Notion, differing only in placement: one attaches to a page generically, the other inserts after a specific block. The names are very similar, so an agent could easily pick the wrong one without reading carefully, though the descriptions do clarify the distinction.

Naming Consistency5/5

Both tool names follow the same verb_noun pattern, 'upload_to_notion', with the second adding a consistent '_at' suffix to indicate location specificity. This is a predictable and uniform convention.

Tool Count3/5

With only two tools, the server feels borderline thin for its stated purpose, though each tool does cover a distinct aspect of uploading. It is not egregiously sparse, but a more complete server might include additional related operations.

Completeness4/5

The server covers the core upload functionality for its narrow domain: basic page attachment and targeted insertion after a block. Minor gaps exist, such as lacking an explicit way to specify a page for the general upload or support for deleting/replacing uploaded blocks, but agents can likely accomplish common tasks with these two tools.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers