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 insight. It implies a mutation operation ('update'), but doesn't address critical aspects: permission requirements (e.g., edit access), side effects (e.g., changes propagate to dependent pages), idempotency, error conditions, or response format. The description fails to compensate for the lack of annotations, leaving the agent under-informed about the tool's behavior.

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 concise but under-specified—'Notion | Update a database' is a single phrase with no wasted words, yet it lacks necessary detail. While brevity is achieved, the structure doesn't front-load actionable information (e.g., purpose or key parameters). It's more sparse than efficiently informative, failing to leverage its brevity for clarity.

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 (4 parameters with nested objects, mutation operation, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address the mutation's impact, expected outputs, error handling, or integration with sibling tools. The high schema coverage helps with inputs, but without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context about the update operation's behavior and results, which it fails to do.

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%, with each parameter well-documented in the schema itself (e.g., database_id as identifier, title/description as rich text arrays, properties as schema objects). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain relationships between parameters or usage examples. However, the high schema coverage justifies the baseline score of 3, as the schema adequately describes inputs.

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 | Update a database' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name 'API-update-a-database' with the addition of 'Notion'. It doesn't specify what 'update' means operationally (e.g., modifying title, description, properties) or distinguish it from similar tools like 'API-patch-block-children' or 'API-patch-page'. While it identifies the resource (Notion database), the verb 'update' remains vague without elaboration.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing a database_id), contrast with sibling tools like 'API-retrieve-a-database' (for reading) or 'API-create-a-database' (for creation), or specify use cases (e.g., modifying schema vs. content). This leaves the agent with no contextual cues for tool selection.

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