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 full burden. It mentions it retrieves '所有附件列表' (all attachments list) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like: whether this is paginated (though limit parameter suggests it might be), what format attachments are returned in, whether it requires specific permissions, error conditions, or rate limits. For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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?

Two concise sentences that efficiently state the purpose and clarify KMS as an internal alias. No wasted words, though the second sentence about KMS being an alias could be considered slightly extraneous if the agent already understands the context.

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?

For a retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the return value looks like (list format, attachment metadata fields), error handling, or behavioral constraints. With 2 parameters and no structured output information, the description should provide more context about the operation's results and limitations.

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 both parameters (pageId, limit) with descriptions. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain what constitutes a valid pageId, typical limit values, or how limit interacts with pagination. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the documentation work.

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 ('获取...所有附件列表' - get all attachments list) and resource ('指定 Confluence (KMS) 页面' - specified Confluence/KMS page). It distinguishes from siblings like 'confluence_upload_attachment' (upload) and 'confluence_get_page' (get page content), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list/retrieval tools like 'confluence_get_child_pages' or 'confluence_get_page_comments'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when you'd use this versus 'confluence_get_page' (which might include attachments), 'confluence_search_pages' (which could find pages with attachments), or other attachment-related operations. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.

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