confluence-http-api-mcp

confluence_search

Search Confluence pages with CQL expressions to filter by space, title, or text, returning titles, IDs, and excerpts for each match.

Instructions

Search Confluence pages with CQL. Examples: space=GAR AND type=page, space=GAR AND title ~ "API", text ~ "address search" AND space=GAR. Returns titles, ids, excerpts.

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": {
      "cql": "<cql>"
    },
    "name": "confluence_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cql`	Yes	Confluence Query Language expression
`limit`	No	Max results (default 25, max 50)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly states it returns titles, ids, and excerpts, which sets expectations for output without requiring an output schema. The word 'Search' implies a read-only operation, providing reasonable transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and includes necessary examples and output details. Every part earns its place, with no redundant or vague filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simple tool nature (2 params, no output schema), the description is complete: it explains what the tool does, how parameters work (via examples), and what the response contains. The sibling list provides further context for selection.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema describes both parameters (cql and limit), but the description adds significant value by providing concrete CQL examples, illustrating valid syntax and usage. This goes beyond the schema's basic type and default information.

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 clearly states the action ('Search Confluence pages with CQL') and specifies the resource (Confluence pages), distinguishing it from sibling tools that retrieve pages by ID/title, list spaces, or get children. The examples further reinforce the purpose.

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 description provides examples of CQL queries, implying when to use the tool (searching), but it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it. Usage context is present but not fully differentiated from sibling tools.

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

Deploy Server