confluence_get_inline_commentsRetrieves all inline comments from a Confluence page by page ID, enabling review of contextual feedback tied to page content.
Get all inline comments for a Confluence page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page_id | Yes | The ID of the page to get inline comments from |
| 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."v1.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without description help. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as pagination, ordering, or resolution state of comments.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized, though the brevity is also the source of the missing usage and behavioral detail.
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 explained, and annotations cover safety. However, for a comments-listing tool the description omits whether results are paginated or include resolved/reply threads, and it does not clarify the boundary with confluence_get_comments.
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% for the single page_id parameter, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no format hints or constraints beyond what the schema already documents.
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 (Get) and resource (inline comments) scoped to a Confluence page, which distinguishes it from the generic confluence_get_comments and from confluence_add_inline_comment. It does not explicitly explain that distinction, but the resource qualifier 'inline' is present.
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 when to use it (retrieving inline comments for a page) but gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over confluence_get_comments or other comment-related siblings, nor any prerequisites. Usage is inferable from the name but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.