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 lists spaces accessible to the current user, implying a read-only operation, but does not cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or the format of returned data. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 well-structured in two sentences. The first sentence directly states the tool's purpose, and the second adds clarifying context about the KMS alias without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no unnecessary verbiage or under-specification.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and clarifies the KMS alias, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like authentication, data format, or error handling. Without annotations or an output schema, more context would be beneficial, but it's not entirely incomplete for a simple listing tool.

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 the single parameter 'type' fully documented (including enum values and default). The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the implications of 'global' vs. 'personal' spaces in more detail. With high schema coverage, 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 tool's purpose: '列出当前用户可访问的所有 Confluence (KMS) Spaces' (List all Confluence/KMS Spaces accessible to the current user). It specifies the verb ('列出' - list) and resource ('Spaces'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'confluence_search_pages' or 'confluence_get_page', which focus on pages rather than spaces. The clarification about KMS being an internal alias for Confluence adds useful context but doesn't enhance sibling differentiation.

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 mentions that it lists spaces accessible to the current user, but does not specify scenarios where this is preferred over other tools (e.g., for space-level operations vs. page-level searches). There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving usage context implied at best.

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