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 states it's an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens if the page doesn't exist. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 with two sentences: one stating the purpose and another clarifying KMS as an alias. It's front-loaded with the core action, though it could be slightly more structured by hinting at key parameters like '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?

Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 5 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior (e.g., error handling, side effects), usage context, and output expectations, making it inadequate for safe and effective tool invocation.

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 5 parameters (space, title, pageId, content, newTitle). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as how 'title' and 'pageId' interact or content format requirements. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 action ('更新' meaning 'update') and resource ('现有的 Confluence (KMS) 页面' meaning 'existing Confluence (KMS) page'), and clarifies that KMS is an internal alias. It distinguishes from siblings like 'confluence_create_page' (create vs update) but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'confluence_upsert_page' (update vs upsert).

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing page ID or title), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'confluence_upsert_page' (which might handle creation if page doesn't exist) or 'confluence_copy_page' (which duplicates content).

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