notion-private-api-mcp

Update Block Text

update_block_text

Replace plain text content of a Notion block (like code) verbatim, without parsing inline markdown.

Instructions

Replace the plain text content of a block (e.g. code block). Inline markdown is NOT parsed — text is stored verbatim.

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_id": "<block_id>",
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "update_block_text"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`block_id`	Yes	Block id or block URL.
`text`	Yes	New plain text content for the block.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 31, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that markdown is not parsed and text is stored verbatim, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it could mention idempotency or side effects like overwriting formatting.

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, no fluff. First sentence gives action and example, second clarifies the key nuance. Efficient and front-loaded.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and a critical behavioral constraint. It could mention prerequisites (e.g., block exists) or error scenarios, but overall is fairly complete.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by emphasizing 'plain text' and 'verbatim', reinforcing the behavioral constraint beyond the schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the action ('Replace the plain text content') and resource ('a block, e.g. code block'), with a specific behavioral note about markdown parsing. It distinguishes itself from siblings like append_blocks or delete_blocks by focusing on updating text content.

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 provides implied context (use when you need verbatim text, not parsed markdown) but does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives among siblings.

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

Deploy Server