notion-plus-mcp-server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Delete Blocks

notion_delete_blocks

Destructive

Move specific Notion blocks by ID to the trash without altering other page content; reverse the deletion with notion_undo.

Instructions

Move specific blocks (by id) to the trash. Nothing else on the page is touched. Reversible with notion_undo.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "block_ids": "<block_ids>"
    },
    "name": "notion_delete_blocks"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`block_ids`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.10.0Oct 1, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds real value beyond that: a precise blast radius ('Nothing else on the page is touched') and recoverability ('Reversible with notion_undo'), which the annotations do not convey.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the safety/recovery 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.

Completeness4/5

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

For a single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers action, scope, and reversibility. It could be improved by noting the 100-item cap or failure behavior on invalid IDs, but nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden. 'By id' clarifies that block_ids are identifiers and the plural phrasing hints at multi-block input, but it omits the 1–100 cardinality constraint and any ID format detail, leaving the schema array underspecified in prose.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Move specific blocks ... to the trash') and immediately scopes the blast radius ('Nothing else on the page is touched'), which distinguishes it from sibling mutators like notion_patch_block, notion_insert_blocks, and notion_trash_page.

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?

Usage is implied but never stated: the description doesn't say when to prefer block-level deletion over notion_trash_page, nor any prerequisites (permissions, block type restrictions). Referencing notion_undo as a recovery path is useful context, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance.

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