Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
supabase-notion MCP Server

supabase-notion MCP Server

by xhq52465840
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Read a Notion page

notion_get_page
Read-only

Reads the plain-text content of a Notion page by its page ID, letting MCP clients retrieve page text without parsing Notion blocks.

Instructions

Read the plain-text content of a Notion page by id.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "pageId": "<pageId>"
    },
    "name": "notion_get_page"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageIdYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one meaningful behavioral detail — that only plain-text content is returned, not structured blocks or properties — but says nothing about truncation, pagination, or missing-page errors, which matter with no output schema.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single tightly worded sentence with the resource and constraint front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It is arguably a touch under-specified rather than over-long, which is a completeness issue, not a conciseness one.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only tool with annotations carrying the safety profile, the basics are covered, but with no output schema the description should say more about what 'plain-text content' includes (properties? child blocks? truncation of large pages?) and what the pageId must look like.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%: the single required pageId parameter is completely undocumented in the schema, and the description only repeats 'by id.' It gives no format hints (UUID vs. URL, dashed vs. undashed), so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb (read) and resource (Notion page content) with a scope qualifier (plain-text, by id). This clearly separates it from notion_search and notion_create_page, though it doesn't name those siblings explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The phrase 'by id' weakly implies the agent must already hold a page id (e.g., from notion_search), but that prerequisite and the search-then-read workflow are left to be inferred.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools