Skip to main content
Glama
jkkitakita

Notion Uploader MCP

by jkkitakita
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Local

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • 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.

  • Average 3.2/5 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

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

notion-uploader-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

notion-uploader-mcp 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/jkkitakita/notion-uploader-mcp'

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