Ops MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return format ('comments with author, date, and content') and a default value for max_results, but doesn't cover important aspects like pagination behavior, error handling, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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, parameter explanations, and a usage benefit - all in just four sentences. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the information is front-loaded with the core functionality stated first.

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 an output schema exists (which handles return value documentation), the description provides adequate context for a relatively simple read operation. It covers the purpose, parameters, and basic use case. However, for a tool with no annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral transparency about how the tool actually works beyond just what it returns.

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?

The description adds meaningful context for both parameters beyond what the schema provides (which has 0% description coverage). It explains that 'page_id' identifies the Confluence page and that 'max_results' controls how many comments to return with a default of 25. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions, though it doesn't specify format requirements for page_id or constraints on max_results.

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 ('Get') and resource ('comments on a Confluence page'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_page_content' or 'search_confluence', which could also involve page-related operations.

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 implied usage context by stating the tool is 'useful for understanding discussions and context around a page,' which suggests when it might be appropriate. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_page_content' or 'search_confluence,' and doesn't mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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