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

supabase-notion MCP Server

by xhq52465840
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Search Notion pages

notion_search
Read-only

Search accessible Notion pages by full-text query and return page IDs, titles, URLs, and last edited times to locate relevant content and verify recent edits.

Instructions

Full-text search over Notion pages the integration can access. Returns id, title, url and last edited time.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "notion_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
queryYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about permission scoping and the returned fields, but says nothing about result ordering, the 20-item cap, or truncation, which matter for a search tool.

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?

Two tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the scope/behavior claim followed by the return shape. No filler.

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?

With no output schema, describing the return fields is the right move and is done. But for a search tool the missing pieces — default result count, the 20-item ceiling, and ranking behavior — leave the agent unable to predict result sets.

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 description coverage is 0% and neither parameter is mentioned in the description. The undocumented 'limit' (default 5, max 20) is a real gap an agent cannot infer — whether results are truncated at 5 by default is important behavior that goes unstated.

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 (full-text search) and resource (Notion pages) plus a scope qualifier ('the integration can access'). It is implicitly distinguishable from notion_get_page and notion_create_page by the search verb, but never names or contrasts them.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No statement of when to use this versus notion_get_page (e.g. when you don't already have a page id), no prerequisites, no exclusions. Usage is only inferable from the verb itself.

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