Confluence Node MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states the tool adds comments (implying a write/mutation operation) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether comments are editable/deletable after creation, rate limits, or error conditions. The KMS alias adds minor context but doesn't compensate for missing safety/operational details critical for a mutation tool.

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 with two sentences: the first states the core functionality and optional feature, the second provides contextual alias information. It's front-loaded with the main purpose, though the KMS note could be considered slightly extraneous. Overall efficient with minimal waste.

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 this is a mutation tool (adds comments) with no annotations, no output schema, and 3 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on authentication needs, error handling, return values, or side effects. While schema coverage is high, the description doesn't compensate for missing behavioral context, making it inadequate for safe agent invocation.

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 already documents all parameters (pageId, content, parentCommentId) thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., no extra format details for 'content' or examples). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't enhance understanding.

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 ('添加评论' - add comment) and resource ('页面评论区' - page comment section), with an optional capability ('回复某条评论' - reply to a comment). It distinguishes from siblings like 'confluence_get_page_comments' (reads) and 'confluence_search_user_comments' (searches), but doesn't explicitly contrast with other write tools like 'confluence_update_page'. The KMS alias note is helpful but not core to purpose.

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 implies usage for adding comments to pages, with optional replying functionality. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives (e.g., no mention of 'confluence_update_page' for editing page content instead of comments), nor prerequisites like authentication or permissions. The context is clear but lacks comparative or exclusionary advice.

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