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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('删除' meaning 'delete') but doesn't describe critical traits: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, if it affects child pages or attachments, or what the response looks like (e.g., success/failure indicators). For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 with two sentences: one stating the tool's purpose and another clarifying 'KMS' as an internal alias. It's front-loaded with the core action, and both sentences add value (the second provides contextual clarification). There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 (a destructive deletion operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permanence, permissions, or response format, nor does it provide usage guidelines. For a high-stakes tool in a set with many siblings, this leaves the agent under-informed about critical context.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'pageId' documented as '要删除的页面 ID' (page ID to delete). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or sourcing instructions. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't 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 verb ('删除' meaning 'delete') and resource ('Confluence (KMS) 页面' meaning 'Confluence (KMS) page'), making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes the tool by specifying it deletes pages, unlike siblings that create, update, copy, or retrieve pages. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'confluence_set_page_restriction' which might also affect page access, though that's a minor gap.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing page ID from 'confluence_get_page'), exclusions (e.g., not for deleting attachments or comments), or comparisons to siblings like 'confluence_update_page' for modifications instead of deletion. This lack of context leaves the agent without usage direction.

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