Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
n24q02m

Better Notion MCP

by n24q02m
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

config

Manage server configuration and credential state.

Instructions

Manage server configuration and credential state.

Actions:

  • status: current credential state and token source

  • setup_status: credential/setup state only (alias-equivalent to status for notion; kept for cross-server parity)

  • setup_start (-> force): show how to store a Notion token with notion auth

  • setup_reset: clear stored credentials, return to awaiting_setup

  • setup_complete: re-check credentials after external config changes

  • set: update a runtime setting (notion has no mutable settings; returns info)

  • cache_clear: clear any cached state (no-op for notion)

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyNoSetting key (for set action)
forceNoForce setup_start even if already configured
valueNoSetting value (for set action)
actionYesAction to perform

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv2.39.0
  2. Removedv2.38.0
  3. Changed1 schema field changedv2.37.0
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "type": "object"
+}
  4. Addedv2.30.4

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavioral quirks: setup_reset clears stored credentials and returns to awaiting_setup, set is a no-op for notion, and cache_clear is a no-op. These no-op disclosures are exactly the kind of context annotations can't convey. Minor tension exists between destructiveHint=false and a credential-clearing action, but that reads as re-auth state loss rather than data destruction.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The lead sentence is front-loaded and the bulleted action list is scannable with zero filler. The parenthetical about cross-server parity is useful but slightly verbose, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

With an output schema present, return values needn't be explained, and all seven actions are accounted for including the no-op cases. An agent has enough to select the right action correctly; only explicit failure/permission behavior is unstated.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and the enum documents each action, so the baseline is 3. The description clarifies action semantics (aliases, force behavior) but adds little about key/value/force beyond what the schema already says.

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+resource ('Manage server configuration and credential state') and then enumerates the seven actions, so an agent knows exactly what the tool covers. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings (pages, databases, users), but those are clearly different resources so there is no real confusion.

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?

Each action line carries implicit when-to-use guidance: setup_complete is 're-check credentials after external config changes', setup_start 'show how to store a Notion token', set is for runtime settings. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative routing, which keeps it below a 5.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools