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 describes the action (get comments) but lacks behavioral details such as whether this is a read-only operation, if there are rate limits, authentication needs, pagination behavior (beyond the 'limit' parameter), or what the output format looks like. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 two concise sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose clearly, and the second adds useful contextual clarification about KMS. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 moderate complexity (fetching comments with a limit parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., read-only nature, error handling) and output format, which are crucial for an agent to use the tool correctly. The description does not compensate for these gaps.

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' and 'limit') adequately. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of pageId format or how limit interacts with pagination. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (KMS) 页面的所有评论（包括回复）' meaning 'all comments including replies for a specified Confluence (KMS) page'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'confluence_search_user_comments' by specifying it's page-specific rather than user-specific. The clarification about KMS being an internal alias adds helpful context.

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 implies usage context (getting comments for a specific page), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'confluence_search_user_comments' or 'confluence_get_page' (which might include comments). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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