notion-plus-mcp-server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

List Database Templates

notion_list_templates

Read-onlyIdempotent

List a Notion database's page templates, including each template's name, ID, and default status, to find the correct template name or ID for creating pages.

Instructions

List a database's page templates (name, id, which is the default). Use a name or id as notion_create_page's template.

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": {
      "database": "<database>"
    },
    "name": "notion_list_templates"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`database`	Yes
`data_source_name`	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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by naming the returned fields (name, id, default), which matters since there is no output schema.

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?

A single tight sentence with the purpose front-loaded and the downstream usage appended; no filler or redundancy.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description usefully sketches the return shape and the consumer of that output. However, it leaves the second parameter undocumented, which is a real gap given 0% schema coverage.

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 0% for two parameters. The description implies the `database` parameter via 'a database's page templates' but says nothing about `data_source_name` or the expected id/name format, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (List) and resource (a database's page templates) and even enumerates the returned fields (name, id, default). No sibling tool covers templates, so it is unambiguous which tool to pick.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent the follow-on action: feed a returned name or id into notion_create_page's `template` parameter, which implies when this tool is used. It does not state any when-not condition, but the workflow context is clear.

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