Confluence Node 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. It mentions that KMS is an alias for the company's Confluence system, which adds some context, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether the operation is idempotent, error handling, or what happens on success/failure. For a creation tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 concise and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in a single sentence. The second sentence adds useful context about KMS being an alias, which earns its place. There is no unnecessary verbosity, making it efficient for an agent 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 complexity of a page creation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral aspects (e.g., permissions, idempotency), output format, error conditions, and usage guidelines relative to siblings. This leaves the agent under-informed for effective tool 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 input schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional semantic information about parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or usage nuances. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 ('创建新的 Confluence (KMS) 页面') and resource ('在指定的 Space 中'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'confluence_upsert_page' or 'confluence_copy_page', which also involve page creation/modification, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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. It does not mention sibling tools like 'confluence_upsert_page' (for creating or updating) or 'confluence_copy_page' (for duplicating), nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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