Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
confluence-wiki-mcp-server

confluence-wiki-mcp-server

by blantian
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

download_wiki_asset

Download wiki attachments or images from wiki.imgo.tv to a local directory by providing the asset URL and output path.

Instructions

下载 Wiki 附件或图片到本地目录。仅支持 wiki.imgo.tv 域名。

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "url": "<url>",
      "outputDir": "<outputDir>"
    },
    "name": "download_wiki_asset"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYes
outputDirYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It states the action (download to local directory) but fails to mention required permissions, whether files are overwritten, or any side effects. The domain restriction is useful but does not provide behavioral guarantees.

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, zero unnecessary words. The information is front-loaded: action, resource, domain constraint. Every word adds value.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficient for a tool with 2 parameter inputs. It omits parameter descriptions, return value expectations, and error scenarios. The domain restriction is a positive but does not compensate for missing details.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 2 parameters (url, outputDir) with 0% description coverage. The tool description does not explain the format or constraints of these parameters, such as what constitutes a valid URL or whether outputDir must be absolute. This forces the agent to guess parameter semantics.

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 action (download) and resource (Wiki attachments or images), and explicitly limits the domain to wiki.imgo.tv. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_wiki_attachments which list attachments, and get_wiki_assets which may list assets.

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?

The description includes the domain restriction ('仅支持 wiki.imgo.tv 域名'), which is a key usage constraint. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like get_wiki_attachments or get_wiki_assets for listing vs. downloading.

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