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 ('获取' meaning 'get') but lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, pagination (beyond the 'limit' parameter), error handling, or return format. For a read operation in a system like Confluence, this omission leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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, with a single sentence stating the core purpose and an additional sentence clarifying 'KMS' as an alias. There is no wasted text, and it efficiently communicates the essential information without unnecessary elaboration.

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 Confluence API tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., permissions, errors), output format, and usage context. While the purpose is clear, the absence of structured data means the description should provide more comprehensive guidance to be fully helpful for an AI agent.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter definitions ('parentId' as parent page ID and 'limit' as result limit with default 50). The description does not add any semantic details beyond the schema, such as explaining what constitutes a valid 'parentId' or how 'limit' interacts with pagination. Since schema coverage is high, 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 ('获取' meaning 'get') and resource ('指定 Confluence 页面的所有子页面' meaning 'all child pages of a specified Confluence page'), making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes the tool by specifying it retrieves child pages, which differentiates it from siblings like 'confluence_get_page' (single page) or 'confluence_search_pages' (search). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, such as 'confluence_get_page_history' or 'confluence_get_page_comments', which also retrieve page-related data but for different aspects.

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 scenarios like navigating page hierarchies, comparing with 'confluence_get_page' for parent details, or using 'confluence_search_pages' for broader queries. Without such context, users must infer usage from the tool name and purpose alone, which is insufficient for optimal selection.

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