connector_notion_fetchFetch a single Notion resource by ID to read its page or database content from NAVIG.
Fetch a single resource from Notion by its ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| resource_id | Yes | Native resource ID to fetch |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description's plain meaning ('Fetch a single resource') is a read-only retrieval, but the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. The description never acknowledges mutation, deletion, or any side effect, so the agent receives a safety profile that directly conflicts with the stated verb. Per the rubric, a description that contradicts its annotations scores 1.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly achieved by omitting information the agent needs rather than by tight editing.
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?
For a single-ID retrieval there is no output schema, so the description should have sketched what comes back, what resource types are valid, and how auth is handled. Combined with the unresolved conflict between 'Fetch' and destructiveHint=true, the definition does not give an agent enough to act safely.
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% for the single parameter, so the schema already explains 'Native resource ID to fetch'; the description's 'by its ID' merely restates it. Baseline 3 is appropriate since there is nothing left to add at low parameter complexity.
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?
States a specific verb ('Fetch'), the source system (Notion), and the lookup key (by its ID), so it is clearly distinguishable from connector_notion_search and connector_notion_act. The only softness is the word 'resource', which never resolves whether the target is a page, database, block, or user.
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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (does the ID need to come from connector_notion_search first?), and never names an alternative tool. The fetch/search/act naming convention implies the split, but the definition itself states none of it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.