notion-plus-mcp-server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Get Block Tree

notion_get_blocks

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read the child blocks of a Notion page or block as an outline with block IDs, so you can inspect large pages one section at a time.

Instructions

Read the children of a page or block as an outline with block ids. Use for large pages to read one section at a time.

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": "<block>"
    },
    "name": "notion_get_blocks"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`block`	Yes	Page or block URL/id.
`max_depth`	No
`max_blocks`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.10.0Oct 1, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value they don't: the return format (outline with block ids) and the incremental-read strategy for large pages, which is behaviorally meaningful for an agent.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, with no wasted words. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description's brief mention of the outline/block-id return shape is helpful. However, given three parameters with only 33% schema coverage, the limits on depth and block count remain unexplained, leaving the definition incomplete for correct invocation.

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 33% — 'block' is documented but max_depth and max_blocks have no descriptions. The description does not explain depth limiting or block-count limits, leaving two of three parameters semantically undocumented despite the low schema coverage.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('read the children of a page or block') and clarifies the return shape ('as an outline with block ids'). It does not name or differentiate against close siblings like notion_find_blocks or notion_get_page, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'Use for large pages to read one section at a time' gives a genuine usage context, but no alternatives are named and no when-not-to-use condition is stated (e.g., how it differs from notion_find_blocks or notion_get_page). Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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