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 pagination and default values, which is helpful, but doesn't cover critical aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description doesn't contradict any annotations (since none exist), but it leaves significant behavioral 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 followed by parameter explanations and return value information. Every sentence adds value, though the 'Args:' and 'Returns:' formatting could be more integrated with natural language. It's appropriately sized for a tool with four parameters.

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 moderate complexity (listing operation with pagination and filtering), no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. It covers parameters well but lacks behavioral context like error handling, rate limits, and usage guidelines. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return format, but more operational guidance would be helpful.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining all four parameters: space_key (with default from config), max_results (with range), page_type (with enum values), and start (pagination offset). It provides meaningful context beyond the schema's titles, though it could elaborate on the 'ACTIVATE from config' default behavior.

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 as 'List all pages in a Confluence space' with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('pages in a Confluence space'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_child_pages' or 'search_confluence' by focusing on space-level listing rather than page-specific operations or search. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these siblings in the description text.

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_child_pages' or 'search_confluence'. It mentions pagination but doesn't explain when pagination is needed or how to handle large result sets. There's no discussion of prerequisites, such as needing space access permissions.

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