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. 'Create a page' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens on success (e.g., returns the created page object). It mentions the platform (Notion) but doesn't describe Notion-specific behaviors like page inheritance, permissions, or workspace context.

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 at just three words ('Notion | Create a page'), with zero wasted text. It's front-loaded with the platform and core action. While arguably too brief for a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, it efficiently communicates the essential purpose without redundancy.

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 mutation tool with 5 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, authentication needs, or Notion-specific constraints. The schema provides partial parameter documentation, but the description doesn't compensate for missing behavioral context or output information.

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?

The description provides no parameter information beyond what's in the schema. With 60% schema description coverage (3 of 5 parameters have descriptions: children, cover, icon), the schema does moderate work. The description doesn't add meaning for the undocumented parameters (parent, properties) or explain their Notion-specific semantics. However, the schema descriptions reference Notion documentation links, providing some external context.

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 | Create a page' clearly states the action (create) and resource (page) with platform context (Notion). It distinguishes from siblings like API-create-a-database or API-create-a-comment by specifying 'page' as the resource type. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from API-patch-page (which updates existing pages) or mention that this creates new pages specifically.

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 when to choose this over API-patch-page (for updates), API-create-a-database (for different resource types), or API-post-database-query (for querying). There's no context about prerequisites, dependencies, or typical use cases for page creation.

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