Confluence Cloud MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.5.1
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool addresses a distinct concern: content editing, media, page management, space management, workspace files, navigation, batch operations, and search. There is no functional overlap or ambiguity.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a verb_confluence_noun pattern (e.g., edit_confluence_content, manage_confluence_page). However, 'manage_workspace' deviates by omitting 'confluence' and 'queue_confluence_operations' uses 'operations' instead of a more concrete noun, slightly breaking consistency.
Tool Count5/5
With 8 tools, the surface is well-scoped for a Confluence content management server. Each tool serves an essential function without unnecessary bloat or sparseness.
Completeness5/5
The tool set covers full lifecycle management for pages (create, read, update, delete, move, copy, archive), spaces, media, search, navigation, and batch operations. The scratchpad-based editing workflow is comprehensive. No obvious gaps are present.
Average 3.4/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 7 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on April 11, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It states it can list, get, and manage, but fails to disclose that it can create, update, and get permissions (evident only from schema). No mention of side effects, authorization, or idempotency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One concise sentence, front-loaded with specific actions. However, 'manage configuration' is vague and could be replaced with more precise terms without adding length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 operations, 6 parameters, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It omits details on create/update/get_permissions outcomes, return values, and pagination behavior. Does not cover all use cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (all 6 parameters described). Description adds minimal high-level context but doesn't explain parameter interdependencies or use cases beyond what schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly identifies verb and resource: 'list spaces, get space details, or manage space configuration' and distinguishes from page/media tools in siblings. However, 'manage configuration' is vague, not specifying create/update/permissions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings like manage_confluence_page or search_confluence. No context on prerequisites or alternative scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions operations like delete and upload but does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, or what 'view' entails beyond inline display. This is insufficient for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (two sentences) and front-loaded with key operations. Every sentence is relevant, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 7 parameters, 6 operations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values for each operation, nor does it specify parameter-to-operation mappings beyond basic schema descriptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that 'view' is for inline display, but this is minor. Most parameter semantics are already clear from the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Upload, download, list, view, or delete page attachments and media.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like edit_confluence_content and manage_confluence_page by focusing on media operations on attachments.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lists operations but does not specify scenarios or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description bears full responsibility for transparency. It explains that operations are performed on a scratchpad and then submitted to Confluence, giving a sense of a batched workflow. However, it does not detail the effect of each operation on the scratchpad state, whether edits are immediately visible, or what happens on discard. The description is moderately transparent but lacks depth on lifecycle and side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description consists of two concise sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence immediately conveys the core purpose and mechanism (line-addressed editing, scratchpad buffer). The second sentence adds a critical prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly efficient for an AI agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (7 parameters, 8 enum values) and no output schema or annotations, the description adequately introduces the tool's purpose and workflow but lacks details on return values, error scenarios, and operation sequencing. It is sufficient for a basic understanding but incomplete for fully autonomous use without additional inference from the schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds context by emphasizing the scratchpadId requirement and the types of operations (view, insert, replace, remove). This aligns with the operation enum but does not significantly augment the schema's descriptions. The value added is modest, keeping the score at baseline 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it is for line-addressed content editing within a scratchpad buffer, listing specific operations (view, insert, replace, remove) and the action of submitting to Confluence. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like manage_confluence_page by focusing on line-level editing. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from all siblings, leaving some ambiguity about when to use this versus other content tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions that a scratchpadId from create or pull_for_editing is required, implying a prerequisite workflow. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when full-page editing would be more appropriate. There is no explicit when-not or list of alternative tools for comparison.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions behavior like scratchpad creation and archive operations, but lacks disclosure of auth needs, rate limits, destructive nature of delete/archive operations, or response format. This is insufficient for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficient, listing operations in a single line then adding key details about scratchpad and archiving. It is front-loaded with the most important information and avoids redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the tool's complexity (11 parameters, 19 operations), the description lacks guidance on when to use each operation, error handling, output structure, and prerequisites. Without an output schema, the agent lacks essential context for proper invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all parameters. The description adds context about scratchpad creation and label/property management, but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool manages Confluence pages with a comprehensive list of operations (get, create, update, delete, move, copy, archive, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle content editing, media, or spaces.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides internal guidance (e.g., 'Use pull_for_editing to load existing page content into a scratchpad'), but does not explicitly compare this tool to siblings like 'edit_confluence_content' or 'manage_confluence_space', leaving the agent to infer when to use alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It states the output format (tree views, relationship graphs) but does not disclose whether operations are read-only, rate limits, or permission requirements. This is adequate but not thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core verb and resource, and contains no extraneous information. Every word contributes to meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (5 parameters, 8 enum operations, no output schema), the description gives a high-level overview but lacks specifics about each operation's return data or behavior. It is minimally sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it merely echoes the concept of navigation. No parameter-specific elaboration.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: navigating page hierarchy, discovering links, backlinks, and related pages, with outputs of tree views and relationship graphs. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_confluence (for text search) and manage_confluence_page (for CRUD operations).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 vs alternatives, no prerequisites, and no when-not-to-use indications. Users must infer from the name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, required permissions, pagination details, or return format. The schema provides parameter descriptions, but behavioral context is missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence covering the main operations. It is efficient but could be better structured by front-loading the core action and separating methods. Still, it is not wasteful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and limited detail, the description fails to explain what the search returns, pagination behavior, or how to use the cursor parameter. The input schema covers parameters, but overall context for a complex tool is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping operations (CQL, full-text, by_label, by_contributor, recent) and explaining the CQL acronym, which goes beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as searching Confluence using specific methods (CQL, full-text, labels, contributors). It distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on editing, managing, or navigating Confluence content.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description lists available search operations but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over siblings or provide context on when not to use it. The usage can be inferred but lacks direct guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description provides some behavioral context (batching, references, error strategies) but lacks details on ordering, atomicity, rate limits, or partial failure behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with core purpose, no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers batching and references, but omits result format and max operations limit (present in schema only).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds marginal value beyond schema field descriptions. It mentions result references and error strategies, which the schema already covers via onError enum and description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it batches multiple Confluence operations in a single call, with support for result references and error strategies. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform individual operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when batching operations, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., individual tools) or provide when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions responses include absolute filesystem path and supports nested paths. However, it does not disclose overwrite behavior on write, error handling, or permission requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, front-loaded with key info, no redundancy. Every sentence adds necessary context efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a multi-operation tool with 4 params, the description covers operations and path support. However, missing details on default behaviors (e.g., overwrite, empty read) and error scenarios reduce completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining move behavior like unix mv, content encoding, and when filename is required, which goes beyond schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it manages files in a local workspace for attachment operations, listing operations like list, read, write, delete, mkdir, move. It distinguishes itself from sibling Confluence tools by context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explains the tool stages files for attachment operations and where downloaded/uploaded files go. It does not explicitly state when not to use or alternatives, but the sibling context makes it clear this is for workspace file ops, not Confluence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![confluence-cloud MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/aaronsb/confluence-cloud/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/aaronsb/confluence-cloud)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![confluence-cloud MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/aaronsb/confluence-cloud/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/aaronsb/confluence-cloud)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/aaronsb/confluence-cloud'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server