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. While it states the tool retrieves page details, it doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, what specific details are returned, or whether this is a read-only operation (though implied by 'get'). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this represents 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 appropriately concise with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and clarify the KMS terminology. Every sentence earns its place, though it could be slightly more front-loaded by immediately stating it retrieves page details rather than starting with the KMS explanation.

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 purpose (retrieving detailed page information), the absence of both annotations and an output schema means the description should do more to explain what '详细信息' (detailed information) includes and the tool's behavioral characteristics. The description is too minimal for a tool that presumably returns complex page data in a system with many sibling alternatives.

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 all three parameters clearly documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. According to the scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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/retrieve') and resource ('Confluence (KMS) 页面的详细信息' meaning 'detailed information of Confluence (KMS) page'), and explains that KMS is an alias for the company's internal Confluence system. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'confluence_get_child_pages' or 'confluence_get_page_history' which also retrieve page-related information.

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. With multiple sibling tools that retrieve page information (e.g., 'confluence_get_child_pages', 'confluence_get_page_history', 'confluence_search_pages'), there's no indication of when this specific 'get page details' tool is appropriate versus those other options.

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