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 effectively describes key behaviors: it searches 'both page titles and content, ranked by relevance (same as the web UI)', returns 'a list of matching pages with titles, space, last modified, and URLs', and supports pagination via 'start' parameter. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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, starting with the core purpose, followed by usage guidelines, behavioral details, and parameter explanations. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or vague language, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 (5 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, behavior, and parameters thoroughly. Since an output schema exists, it doesn't need to detail return values, and the mention of 'get_page_content' for reading results adds practical 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed parameter semantics. It explains each parameter's purpose: 'query' supports both text and CQL, 'space_key' defaults to ACTIVATE, 'ancestor_page_id' scopes search, 'max_results' defaults to 50, and 'start' is for pagination. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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: 'Search Confluence pages — the primary tool for finding documentation.' It specifies the verb ('Search'), resource ('Confluence pages'), and scope ('primary tool for finding documentation'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_page_content' or 'get_space_pages' which retrieve specific content rather than searching broadly.

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 explicit usage guidelines: 'USE THIS TOOL when the user says 'docs', 'documentation', 'wiki', 'runbook', 'find page about X', or any documentation-related question.' It also mentions an alternative tool ('Use get_page_content(page_id='...') to read any result'), giving clear context for when to use this tool versus others.

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