Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-confluence

mcp-confluence

by sirexelite
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Загрузить вложение

confluence_upload_attachment

Upload a local file as an attachment to a Confluence page using its page ID and file path.

Instructions

Загружает локальный файл как вложение к странице. Укажите путь к файлу на диске.

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>",
      "filePath": "<filePath>"
    },
    "name": "confluence_upload_attachment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageIdYesID страницы
commentNoКомментарий к вложению
filePathYesПуть к локальному файлу

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It implies mutation but does not address overwrite behavior, permissions, or error conditions.

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?

Two sentences with no redundancy, front-loaded with the core action.

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

Completeness3/5

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

While the tool's purpose is clear, the description omits return values, success/failure indicators, and details about overwriting or file size limits that an agent might need.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the filePath parameter but adds no new meaning beyond the schema descriptions.

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 ('upload local file as attachment') and the resource ('to a page'), and distinguishes from siblings like comment or label tools.

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?

The description provides minimal usage guidance ('specify path to file') but lacks context on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or constraints like file size limits.

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