Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
dev.mcp

dev.mcp

by iwilldotdev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

confluence_create_inline_comment

Creates an inline comment on a Confluence page by providing page ID and body text, allowing targeted feedback on selected content.

Instructions

Creates an inline comment (POST /wiki/api/v2/inline-comments).

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>",
      "bodyValue": "<bodyValue>"
    },
    "name": "confluence_create_inline_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageIdYesPage ID.
bodyValueYes
bodyRepresentationNo
inlineCommentPropertiesNoHighlighted selection/text properties required by the v2 API.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only states the mutation ('Creates') and the endpoint. It does not disclose required permissions, side effects, return behavior, or prerequisites like highlighted selection properties.

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 extremely concise, front-loads the core action, and includes the API endpoint without any filler. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a create operation with four parameters, a nested object, no annotations, and no output schema, a single sentence is insufficient. It omits guidance on required body content, representation format, and how the highlighted-selection properties should be structured.

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 50%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. Required fields such as bodyValue remain unexplained, and inlineCommentProperties is only vaguely described in the schema as 'Highlighted selection/text properties' without detail.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Creates an inline comment' with the exact API endpoint. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like confluence_create_footer_comment and confluence_create_page.

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 purpose implies when to use the tool: when an inline comment needs to be created. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it differs from footer comments and page creation tools.

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