Ops MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that content can be HTML or plain text (with formatting details) and mentions the return format (confirmation with page ID and URL). However, it does not cover important behavioral aspects like required permissions, error handling, rate limits, or whether the operation is idempotent, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage examples, parameter details, and return information. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the bullet-point style for parameters enhances readability while maintaining brevity.

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's complexity (mutation with 4 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema (which covers return values), the description does a good job but has minor gaps. It explains parameters thoroughly and mentions returns, but lacks details on permissions, errors, or idempotency, which are important for a creation tool. The output schema helps, but behavioral context could be more complete.

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 fully. It provides detailed semantics for all four parameters: explains uniqueness for 'title', content formats for 'body', default behavior for 'space_key', and optional nesting for 'parent_page_id'. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, covering all parameters effectively.

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 with a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('new Confluence page'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'update_confluence_page' by focusing on creation rather than modification. The examples (incident reports, runbook entries, etc.) further clarify the intended use cases.

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 clear context on when to use this tool ('to create incident reports, runbook entries, meeting notes, or any documentation'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'update_confluence_page' for modifying existing pages. The guidance is helpful but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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