notion-plus-mcp-server

by katekruger

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

Find Blocks

notion_find_blocks

Read-onlyIdempotent

Locate Notion page blocks by text or regex to edit precise blocks without rewriting the page.

Instructions

Find blocks on a page whose text matches a string or regex. Returns block id, type, text, and last_edited_time. Use this to locate exactly which block to edit instead of rewriting the page.

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": {
      "page": "<page>",
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "notion_find_blocks"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	Yes	Page URL or id.
`query`	Yes
`regex`	No
`max_depth`	No
`max_results`	No
`case_sensitive`	No

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 cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description adds value by disclosing the return fields (block id, type, text, last_edited_time), which the annotations do not. It omits limits on depth/results and pagination behavior.

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?

Three tight sentences: what it does, what it returns, and when to use it. Front-loaded with the core action and no filler.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a 6-parameter tool with low schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the core search semantics and return shape but leaves four behavioral parameters (depth, result cap, case sensitivity, regex flag behavior) undocumented anywhere.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 17%, so the description must carry the load. It clarifies that query matches as a string or regex, tying the query and regex parameters together, but says nothing about max_depth, max_results, case_sensitive, or the page parameter format.

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 (find) and resource (blocks on a page) with the matching criterion (string or regex). It is clearly distinguishable from notion_get_blocks (retrieval by structure) and notion_replace_text/notion_update_page, which it implicitly contrasts.

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?

Gives a concrete when-to-use: locate the exact block to edit rather than rewriting the page. It does not name a specific sibling alternative or state exclusions (e.g., when to use notion_get_blocks instead), so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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