Confluence Node MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does (search pages) without describing any behavioral traits like pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, search scope limitations beyond the space parameter, or what the response format looks like.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and provide useful context about KMS being an internal alias. Every word earns its place with zero wasted content.

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 search tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the search returns, how results are formatted, whether there's pagination, or any behavioral constraints. The KMS context is helpful but insufficient for a tool with this complexity.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain search syntax, space naming conventions, or result ordering. The baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the 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 tool searches pages in Confluence (KMS), providing a specific verb ('搜索' - search) and resource ('页面' - pages). It distinguishes the tool by mentioning KMS as an internal alias, but doesn't explicitly differentiate it from sibling search tools like 'confluence_search_user_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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use this search tool versus other search tools like 'confluence_search_user_comments' or when to use search versus browsing tools like 'confluence_get_child_pages' or 'confluence_list_spaces'.

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