jcm_lookupSpaceResolve a Confluence space key to its numeric ID for creating articles, returning the ID, key, and name.
Resolve a Confluence space key to its numeric ID for use with jcm_createArticle. Returns {id, key, name}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| spaceKey | Yes | Confluence space key |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.10.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new information by disclosing the return payload ("{id, key, name}"), which matters because no output schema exists; it omits error behavior for an invalid key.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the return shape. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant or padding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter lookup with full annotation coverage, the description covers purpose, consumer, and return fields. The only meaningful gap is what happens when the space key does not exist (error vs. empty result), which an agent would otherwise have to discover by trial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and there is only one required parameter whose meaning ("Confluence space key") is already spelled out in the schema. The description restates the concept without adding format or validation semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ("Resolve") and resource ("a Confluence space key to its numeric ID"), which is a narrow, unambiguous operation that no sibling tool performs. It also names the downstream consumer (jcm_createArticle), so an agent immediately knows the result's role.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
"for use with jcm_createArticle" gives a clear positive trigger for calling this tool. There is no explicit when-not or note about what to do if the key is already known, but the usage context is concrete rather than implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.