Confluence Node MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the three restriction modes and their effects (e.g., '所有人可查看但只有指定用户可编辑' - everyone can view but only specified users can edit), which is helpful. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether the operation is idempotent. For a permission-setting tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral 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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently explains the tool's purpose and the three restriction modes. Every part earns its place: it states what the tool does, specifies the resource, and details the available options without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 permission-setting tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information about what the tool does and the restriction modes. However, it lacks details about return values, error handling, side effects, or prerequisites (e.g., required permissions). Given the complexity of access control operations, more context would be beneficial for safe and effective use.

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 all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by reinforcing the meaning of restrictionType through the mode explanations, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or examples beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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: '设置 Confluence (KMS) 页面的访问权限' (sets Confluence page access permissions). It specifies the exact action (setting permissions) and resource (Confluence pages), and distinguishes itself from siblings like confluence_update_page or confluence_delete_page by focusing specifically on permission management rather than content modification or deletion.

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 clear context for when to use this tool by detailing the three restriction modes (none, edit_only, view_only). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among sibling tools (e.g., whether confluence_update_page might also handle permissions). The guidance is implicit through the mode descriptions but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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