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 does disclose the permission requirement ('需要页面编辑权限') and mentions the two input methods (filePath vs contentBase64), which is useful context. However, it doesn't describe what happens on success/failure, whether the operation is idempotent, rate limits, or file size restrictions. For a mutation 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 perfectly concise - two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core purpose and supported input methods. The second sentence provides crucial permission information. No wasted words, and the most important information (what the tool does) is front-loaded.

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 mutation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It covers the basic purpose, input methods, and permission requirement, but doesn't describe the return value, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. Given the complexity of file upload operations and lack of structured metadata, more contextual information would be helpful.

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 thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions the two input methods (filePath/contentBase64) and their relationship, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or constraints beyond what's in the parameter descriptions. 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 specific action ('上传附件' - upload attachment) and target resource ('指定 Confluence (KMS) 页面' - specified Confluence page), distinguishing it from sibling tools like confluence_get_page_attachments (which retrieves attachments) and confluence_update_page (which modifies page content). The mention of Confluence/KMS provides additional context about the platform.

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 about when to use this tool ('上传附件到指定 Confluence 页面' - upload attachment to specified Confluence page) and mentions permission requirements ('需要页面编辑权限' - requires page edit permission). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternative tools from the sibling list for different attachment-related operations.

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