Confluence MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool fetches and converts HTML to text, implying a read-only operation, but does not cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or output format (e.g., structured text). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's core function and key transformation (HTML to text). It is front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids unnecessary details. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly naming parameters or usage scenarios, but it remains concise and to the point.

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 the tool's complexity (fetching and converting content), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value (e.g., text format, potential truncation with 'maxChars'), error conditions, or dependencies like authentication. For a tool with these gaps, the description should provide more context to guide 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%, with clear documentation for both parameters: 'pageId' (Confluence page id) and 'maxChars' (본문 최대 길이, maximum length of body). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning 'pageId' implicitly but not elaborating on parameter usage or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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: 'Confluence 페이지 ID로 본문을 가져옵니다' (fetches page content by Confluence page ID) with the additional detail 'HTML을 텍스트로 변환' (converts HTML to text). This specifies the verb (fetch), resource (page content), and a key transformation (HTML to text). It distinguishes from the sibling 'confluence_search' by focusing on retrieval by ID rather than search functionality.

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 like 'confluence_search'. It mentions the input parameter 'pageId' but does not explain prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid page ID) or exclusions (e.g., not for searching). Without explicit usage context or comparisons, the agent must infer when this tool is appropriate.

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