Skip to main content
Glama
aaronsb

Confluence Cloud MCP Server

by aaronsb
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

manage_workspace

Manage a local workspace for Confluence attachments: list, read, write, delete, create directories, and move files with nested path support.

Instructions

Stage files in the local workspace for attachment operations. List, read, write, delete files, or create directories. Supports nested paths (e.g. "projects/images/photo.png"). Downloaded attachments land here; upload can read from here. All responses include the absolute filesystem path.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contentNoBase64-encoded file content (required for write)
filenameNoFile or directory path, supports nesting with / separators (required for read, write, delete, mkdir, move)
operationYesThe workspace operation to perform
destinationNoDestination path for move operation — works like unix mv: rename a file (move filename:"old.txt" destination:"new.txt"), relocate it (move filename:"file.txt" destination:"subdir/file.txt"), or both at once

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.1

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools