Confluence 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 Markdown conversion, which adds useful context beyond basic creation. However, it lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, error handling, or what happens on success (e.g., returns a page ID). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 two concise sentences with zero waste: the first states the core purpose, and the second adds a key behavioral detail (Markdown conversion). It's front-loaded and efficiently structured.

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 complexity of a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values (e.g., page ID), error conditions, or important behavioral traits like authentication needs. While it covers the basic action and Markdown feature, it leaves critical gaps for effective agent use.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters (spaceKey, title, content, parentId). The description adds minimal value by noting Markdown support for the 'content' parameter, but doesn't elaborate on semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Create a new page') and resource ('in Confluence'), distinguishing it from siblings like delete, get, list, search, and update. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'update_confluence_page' beyond the verb, missing a specific distinction about when to create vs. update.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_confluence_page' for modifying existing pages or 'list_confluence_pages' for browsing. The description implies usage for new pages but lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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