Notion MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'retrieve comments,' which implies a read-only operation, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not explained), or what the response contains. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 two words ('Notion | Retrieve comments'), making it front-loaded and free of unnecessary information. Every word serves a purpose, though it is under-specified rather than overly verbose. This efficiency in length warrants a high score for conciseness.

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 (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, output format, and usage context, failing to compensate for the absence of structured data. While the schema covers parameters, the overall description does not provide enough information for effective tool invocation, especially for a retrieval operation with pagination and no output schema.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, providing clear details for all parameters (block_id, page_size, start_cursor). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, as it does not explain parameter usage, relationships, or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the schema adequately documents parameters without description enhancement.

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 | Retrieve comments' is tautological, essentially restating the tool name 'API-retrieve-a-comment' with minor rewording. It specifies the verb 'retrieve' and resource 'comments' but lacks specificity about what is being retrieved (e.g., comments on a block/page) and does not distinguish it from potential sibling tools like 'API-retrieve-a-block' or 'API-retrieve-a-page', making it vague and minimally informative.

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 does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as how it differs from other retrieval tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'API-retrieve-a-block' or 'API-retrieve-a-page'). This absence of usage instructions leaves the agent without direction for tool selection.

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