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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return format ('list of child pages with titles and IDs') but lacks critical details: whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, any rate limits, pagination behavior beyond the max_results default, or error conditions (e.g., invalid page_id). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by bullet-pointed parameter explanations and a return statement. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool's function, the parameter descriptions clarify inputs, and the return statement outlines outputs. There is no redundant or verbose language.

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 no annotations, 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, and an output schema present, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context (e.g., safety, errors, pagination). The output schema likely details return values, so the description doesn't need to explain returns extensively, but it should address more operational aspects for full completeness.

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 meaningful context for all three parameters: page_id is explained as 'The parent page ID', include_content clarifies it provides 'a short content preview for each child', and max_results specifies 'Max children to return (default 50)'. This goes beyond the schema's basic titles and types, though it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., page_id structure) or edge cases.

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 ('List all child pages') and identifies the target resource ('of a given parent page'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_space_pages' or 'search_confluence' by focusing on hierarchical page relationships rather than space-wide listing or search functionality.

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 like 'get_space_pages' or 'search_confluence'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a valid parent page ID, or exclusions, like not being suitable for non-hierarchical content. The only implicit context is the need for a parent page, but no explicit usage instructions are given.

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