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 that the tool 'Returns a list of labels,' which indicates a read-only operation, but fails to address other critical aspects such as authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., invalid page_id), rate limits, or pagination behavior. 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first ('Get all labels (tags) on a Confluence page.'). The additional sentences provide useful context without redundancy. However, the formatting with 'Args:' and 'Returns' could be more integrated, slightly affecting structure.

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 low complexity (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the basic purpose and usage hint but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling or authentication, which are important for a tool with no annotations. This results in a minimally adequate but incomplete description.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, with only one parameter ('page_id') documented structurally. The description adds minimal semantics by stating 'page_id: The page ID,' which restates the schema's title without providing additional context (e.g., format, source, or validation rules). Since schema coverage is low, the description does not adequately compensate, resulting in a baseline score.

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: 'Get all labels (tags) on a Confluence page.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('labels on a Confluence page'), making the action unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_page_attachments' or 'get_page_comments', which follow a similar pattern but target different page attributes.

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 guidance by stating it's 'Useful for finding related pages or understanding page categorization.' This suggests contexts where the tool is applicable, such as content organization or navigation. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'search_confluence' for broader queries) or any exclusions, leaving room for interpretation.

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