atlassian-browser-mcp

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds important behavioral context: it specifies platform limitations (Cloud-only, not Server/Data Center) and describes the return format ('JSON string with page view statistics including total views and last viewed date'). This goes beyond what annotations convey about safety and adds practical implementation details.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, note, args, returns) and avoids unnecessary verbosity. However, the 'Args' section could be more concise since it largely repeats schema information, and the note about platform availability could be integrated more smoothly into the main description.

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 that annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint), the input schema has 100% coverage, and an output schema exists (implied by 'Returns' specification), the description provides complete contextual information. It covers purpose, platform constraints, parameters, and return format—everything needed for an agent to understand and use this tool effectively.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents both parameters. The description's 'Args' section restates parameter names and basic purposes but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain why include_title might be useful or provide additional examples). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Get view statistics') and resource ('for a Confluence page'), distinguishing it from siblings like confluence_get_page (which retrieves content) or confluence_get_page_history (which retrieves version history). The verb 'Get' combined with 'view statistics' precisely defines the tool's function.

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 explicit context about when NOT to use this tool ('only available for Confluence Cloud. Server/Data Center instances do not support'), which is valuable guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when to choose this tool over alternatives like confluence_get_page (which might return basic metadata but not view statistics) or provide comparisons with other analytics-related tools.

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