notion-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

notion_update_page_content

Edit a Notion page by finding exact markdown text and replacing or deleting it; read the page markdown first to copy the exact text to change.

Instructions

Edit page content using search-and-replace on the page's markdown.

Finds old_text in the page content and replaces it with new_text. Use notion_read_page_markdown first to see the current content and copy the exact text to replace.

page_id: the page to edit. old_text: exact text to find in the page content. new_text: replacement text (use empty string to delete). replace_all: if old_text occurs more than once the edit is rejected unless this is True (then every occurrence is replaced). allow_deleting_content: must be True for an edit that would delete a child page or database.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page_id`	Yes
`new_text`	Yes
`old_text`	Yes
`replace_all`	No
`allow_deleting_content`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.2.2Oct 26, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / allow_deleting_content

Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "title": "Allow Deleting Content",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / replace_all

Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "title": "Replace All",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

First observedv0.1.0Aug 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries substantial behavioral detail: exact-match replacement, empty new_text deletes, multiple matches are rejected unless replace_all is true, and child page/database deletion requires allow_deleting_content=true. It does not cover permissions, error behavior when old_text is absent, or reversibility, so it is strong but not fully exhaustive.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is front-loaded with the core mechanism and then uses a compact parameter list. Every sentence adds useful operational context, with no redundant restatement of the title or name.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, the description provides the essential mechanics, parameter meanings, and destructive-edit safeguards; an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. It could be more complete by mentioning permission requirements or what happens when old_text is not found, but it is sufficient to call the tool correctly in normal use.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains page_id, old_text, new_text including empty-string deletion, replace_all duplicate handling, and allow_deleting_content's destructive-edit guard. Every parameter has meaningful semantics beyond its bare name.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: edit page content via search-and-replace on the page's markdown. It clearly distinguishes the mechanism from a full-page replacement, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as notion_replace_page_content, notion_append_content, or notion_insert_page_content.

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?

It gives a clear prerequisite workflow: use notion_read_page_markdown first to see current content and copy exact text. It also explains the conditions for replace_all and allow_deleting_content, though it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over other page-editing siblings.

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

Deploy Server