confluence-http-api-mcp

confluence_get_page_children

List child pages under a given parent page to navigate Confluence document trees and build a table of contents.

Instructions

List child pages under a parent page (table of contents / doc tree).

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_children"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`pageId`	Yes	Parent content id

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the core action ('List child pages') without adding context on pagination (limit parameter), ordering, permission requirements, or handling of empty results. The description adds little beyond the tool name.

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?

A single sentence that is clear, front-loaded, and contains no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and context.

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?

Despite the tool's simplicity, the description is incomplete given no output schema and no annotations. It doesn't mention the effect of the limit parameter, response contents, error cases, or traversal depth. The description is minimal and leaves important operational questions unanswered.

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%: pageId is documented, but limit is not. The tool description does not explain limit or any parameter semantics beyond what the schema already says. It fails to compensate for the missing limit documentation, leaving the optional parameter ambiguous.

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?

Description clearly states it lists child pages under a parent page, with the 'table of contents / doc tree' metaphor reinforcing the hierarchical intent. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_page (single page retrieval), search (query), and list_spaces (space listing).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for navigating a document hierarchy or building a TOC, which is clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare it with alternatives, so it falls short of a full usage guide.

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

Deploy Server