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. It states the upsert behavior but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like required permissions, whether this is a destructive operation, rate limits, or what happens on conflicts. For a write operation 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 appropriately sized with two sentences that efficiently explain the core functionality and system context. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids unnecessary elaboration. Every sentence earns its place.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains the upsert behavior but lacks information about required permissions, error conditions, return values, or system constraints. Given the complexity and lack of structured data, 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 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't need to.

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 verb ('创建或更新' - create or update) and resource ('Confluence (KMS) 页面' - Confluence page), with specific conditional logic ('如果页面存在则更新，否则创建' - update if page exists, otherwise create). It distinguishes from siblings like 'confluence_create_page' and 'confluence_update_page' by combining both operations into one tool.

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 implies usage context by mentioning KMS as an internal system alias, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'confluence_create_page' or 'confluence_update_page'. It provides clear operational logic (upsert behavior) but lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools.

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