confluence-wiki-mcp-server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_wiki_requirement_bundle

Aggregate a complete evidence bundle for a Confluence Wiki page, including context, comments, references, assets, and permissions.

Instructions

聚合获取 Wiki 页面的完整 evidence bundle：上下文、评论、引用、资产和权限问题。不做需求裁决。

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": {
      "pageId": "<pageId>"
    },
    "name": "get_wiki_requirement_bundle"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`pageId`	Yes
`includeAssets`	No
`referenceDepth`	No
`includeComments`	No
`includeReferences`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool aggregates and fetches without making judgments, implying read-only behavior. However, it does not disclose specifics like required permissions, whether it is idempotent, or how 'permissions issues' are handled.

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-loads the purpose. It is concise, but could benefit from more structure, such as listing what each parameter controls.

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 the complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, many siblings), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the role of each parameter, the format of the returned bundle, or how it compares to using individual sibling tools.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any of the 5 parameters. The description mentions the bundle components but does not link them to parameters like includeAssets or referenceDepth. The agent must rely solely on parameter names and types, which is insufficient.

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 aggregates a complete evidence bundle for a Wiki page, listing specific components (context, comments, references, assets, permissions issues). The verb 'get' and resource 'evidence bundle' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools that fetch individual components.

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 mentions it does not make requirement judgments, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this aggregated tool versus the individual sibling tools like get_wiki_page_context or get_wiki_comments. The context is implied but not stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server