Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
dev.mcp

dev.mcp

by iwilldotdev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

confluence_get_page_footer_comments

Retrieve footer comments for a Confluence page by providing its page ID. Get page feedback directly without navigating the Confluence interface.

Instructions

Footer comments (GET /wiki/api/v2/pages/{id}/footer-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>"
    },
    "name": "confluence_get_page_footer_comments"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
cursorNo
pageIdYesPage ID.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only reveals the HTTP method and path. It does not disclose pagination behavior, authentication requirements, filtering, ordering, or what happens when no comments exist. The GET method implies read-only behavior, but little else is conveyed.

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 line that front-loads the resource and includes the endpoint. It is efficient, though it sacrifices useful detail for brevity.

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?

The endpoint-only description is insufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly without prior Confluence API knowledge. There is no output schema, no annotation, and no explanation of pagination or return format, leaving significant gaps.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 33%, and the tool description adds no meaning to the parameters. The limit and cursor parameters, which are critical for pagination, are left entirely undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 identifies a specific resource, footer comments, and includes the exact HTTP endpoint with the page ID placeholder. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like confluence_get_page_inline_comments, though it does not explicitly state the action verb beyond the GET method.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that this is for fetching page footer comments as opposed to inline comments, creating comments, or searching for them.

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