confluence_add_commentAdds a comment to a Confluence page using a page ID and Markdown body, enabling AI tools to post feedback directly on SSO-protected Atlassian instances.
Add a comment to a Confluence page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | The comment content in Markdown format | |
| page_id | Yes | The ID of the page to add a comment to |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.1Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseOutput schema / descriptionRemoved value: -"Generic wrapper for non-object return types."v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile and non-idempotent nature (duplicate comments on retry) are known from structured data. The description adds no further behavior — nothing about permissions, visibility of the comment, or what markup is supported beyond what the schema says.
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?
A single short sentence with zero padding and the verb front-loaded, so nothing is wasted. It is concise to a fault: the brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and the two parameters are fully documented. What's missing is the disambiguation an agent needs in an 80+ tool catalogue containing add_inline_comment and reply_to_comment, plus any mention of permission requirements for a write operation.
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% (page_id and body are both documented, including Markdown format), so the schema carries parameter meaning entirely. The description adds nothing beyond it, which is the expected baseline when coverage is complete.
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?
States a specific verb ('add') and resource ('comment') on a named object ('Confluence page'), so the basic action is unambiguous. However, it offers no differentiation from the closely related siblings confluence_add_inline_comment and confluence_reply_to_comment, which an agent must choose between.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusion of inline comments or thread replies, and no note about prerequisites such as page edit/comment permission. The agent is left to infer the choice between three comment-creating siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.