awesome-confluence-mcp

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 mentions the tool returns a JSON string with page details, but lacks critical behavioral traits such as pagination handling, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a search 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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by organized sections for 'Args' and 'Returns', with each parameter explained concisely. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the purpose, parameters, and return format. The output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, it lacks behavioral context like error handling or usage guidelines, which slightly reduces completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for all three parameters: 'query' is described as matching 'page titles and content', 'space_key' limits search 'to a specific space', and 'limit' specifies 'maximum number of results' with default and max values. This effectively documents parameters beyond the bare schema.

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: 'Search for Confluence pages by title or content.' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('Confluence pages'), and scope ('by title or content'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'fetch_page_markdown' or 'list_spaces', which would be needed for a score of 5.

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 sibling tools like 'fetch_page_markdown' (for retrieving specific page content) or 'list_spaces' (for browsing spaces), nor does it specify use cases or exclusions. This leaves the agent without contextual direction for tool selection.

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