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 tool retrieves version history but doesn't describe the return format (e.g., list of versions with metadata), pagination behavior (implied by 'limit' parameter), or any constraints like rate limits or authentication needs. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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, consisting of two sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second clarifies the KMS alias. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 (retrieving version history), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and clarifies the KMS alias, but lacks details on return values, behavioral traits, or usage context. This leaves the agent with gaps in understanding how to interpret results or handle edge cases.

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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters: 'pageId' as '页面 ID' and 'limit' as '返回历史记录数量' with a default of 10. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format details for pageId or usage tips for limit. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema handles documentation.

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 tool's purpose: '获取 Confluence (KMS) 页面的版本历史' (Get Confluence page version history). It specifies the verb '获取' (get) and resource '页面版本历史' (page version history), and clarifies that KMS is an internal alias for Confluence. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'confluence_get_page' or 'confluence_get_page_comments' beyond the general 'version history' focus.

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 sibling tools like 'confluence_get_page' (for current content) or 'confluence_get_page_comments' (for comments), nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing a valid page ID. Usage is implied only by the tool name and description.

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