Notion MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'retrieve', implying a read-only operation, but fails to detail aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what data is returned (e.g., full page content vs. metadata). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 very concise with just 'Notion | Retrieve a page', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, it may be overly terse, as it lacks necessary context for effective use, slightly reducing its utility despite efficient structure.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a description that only states the basic action, the tool is inadequately documented. It does not explain return values, error cases, or behavioral nuances, making it incomplete for a retrieval tool in a complex API environment with many siblings.

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 clear documentation for both parameters (page_id and filter_properties), including examples for filter_properties. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting without compensating for gaps.

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 a page' states the action (retrieve) and resource (a page), which clarifies the basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'retrieve' entails (e.g., fetching metadata, content, or both) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'API-retrieve-a-block' or 'API-retrieve-a-database', making it vague in context.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not explain when to choose this over 'API-retrieve-a-block' for page content or 'API-post-search' for finding pages, nor does it mention prerequisites like needing a page ID. This leaves usage unclear in the context of sibling tools.

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