confluence_get_pageGet full content of a Confluence page by ID. Returns title, body content, status, version, and space info.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page_id | Yes | Page ID | |
| body_format | No | Body format to return: "storage" (HTML) or "atlas_doc_format" (ADF). Default: "storage" |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Full page content with metadata",
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "page_id": "12345"
+ },
+ {
+ "body_format": "atlas_doc_format",
+ "page_id": "67890"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds that the tool returns page content but does not disclose additional behavioral traits (e.g., whether the page must exist, error handling, or rate limits). Since annotations cover the safety profile, the description provides minimal extra value.
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 sentence that is front-loaded and clear. While concise, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing parameters explicitly), but it remains efficient and 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 simplicity (read-only, 2 parameters, output schema exists), the description adequately covers what the tool does and returns. It omits details about page existence or error scenarios, but for a straightforward read operation, the completeness is sufficient.
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 both parameters (page_id, body_format) are well-described in the schema. The description mentions 'by ID' but adds no further semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. At baseline 3, no additional parameter context is contributed.
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 gets full content of a Confluence page by ID and returns specific fields (title, body, status, version, space info). It uses a specific verb and resource, and the return details distinguish it from sibling tools like confluence_create_page or confluence_search.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., obtaining page ID from list/search) nor exclusions. Context is implied but not directly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.