Fetch the full HTML body of a Confluence page by page ID with user approval, enabling retrieval of page content for analysis or review.
Fetch the full content of a Confluence page by page ID. Returns the page body as HTML storage format. Requires user approval.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | Yes | One sentence: why are you calling this tool right now? | |
| page_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v5.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds genuinely new context beyond them: the return is HTML storage format and the call 'Requires user approval', which is an important operational constraint not captured in annotations.
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?
Three tight sentences with zero waste; the core action is front-loaded and the return format plus approval requirement follow logically. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
No output schema exists, but the description covers the return value (HTML storage format) and the approval requirement. The main gap is the lack of any routing guidance against the numerous sibling retrieval tools.
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 coverage is 50%: the 'reason' parameter is documented in the schema, but 'page_id' has no schema description. The description only implies page_id's meaning ('by page ID') without adding format or source details, so coverage of the undocumented parameter remains thin. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Fetch') and resource ('full content of a Confluence page') scoped by page ID, and discloses the return format. It does not explicitly differentiate from the close sibling confluence_get_page_by_title, but the 'by page ID' qualifier implicitly distinguishes it.
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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not tell the agent when to prefer this over confluence_get_page_by_title, confluence_search, or confluence_cql_search, leaving routing to inference from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.