Notion Workflow MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions '全文搜索' (full-text search) which implies search behavior, but doesn't describe what '匹配的任务列表' (matching task list) contains, whether results are paginated, sorted, or limited. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate transparency about how the tool actually behaves.

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 appropriately concise with three sentences that each serve a purpose: stating the tool's function, documenting the parameter, and describing the return value. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args/Returns structure is clear though somewhat redundant with schema information.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values), the description doesn't need to explain return format details. However, for a search tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description should provide more context about search behavior, result characteristics, and usage scenarios. It's minimally complete but leaves important questions unanswered.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds minimal value: it documents the single parameter 'query' as '搜索关键词' (search keywords), which provides basic semantics. However, it doesn't explain query syntax, language support, or search scope. With 0% schema coverage and only 1 parameter, this meets the baseline but doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: '在工作流库中全文搜索任务' (full-text search for tasks in the workflow library). It specifies the verb (search) and resource (tasks) with scope (workflow library). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_tasks' or 'search_notes', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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. There are multiple sibling tools for task retrieval (list_tasks, get_task, get_today_tasks, search_notes) but no indication of when full-text search is preferred over listing or other search methods. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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