Notion MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It doesn't describe whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'search'), authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (though hinted in schema), or what happens on errors. The description adds little beyond the basic action, leaving significant behavioral gaps for an agent to infer.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise with just three words ('Notion | Search by title'), which is front-loaded and wastes no space. Every element (resource, action, scope hint) earns its place without redundancy. For a tool with rich schema documentation, this brevity is efficient and appropriate.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, nested objects, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or key behaviors like pagination (implied by 'start_cursor' in schema). For a search tool with multiple parameters and no output schema, more context is needed to help an agent use it effectively.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it implies the 'query' parameter searches titles, but this is already clear from the schema's description. No additional syntax, format details, or usage examples are provided. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Notion | Search by title' states the resource (Notion) and action (search), but is vague about scope and specificity. It mentions 'by title' which adds some specificity, but doesn't clarify whether this searches only pages/databases or other objects, nor does it distinguish from sibling tools like 'API-post-database-query' which also involves searching. The description lacks a clear verb+resource+scope combination.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'API-post-database-query' (for querying databases) or 'API-retrieve-a-page' (for direct retrieval), nor does it specify use cases like finding pages/databases by title versus other search methods. There's no explicit when/when-not context or prerequisites stated.

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