confluence_get_pageRead a Confluence page by ID and return a cleaned, size-bounded summary of its content.
Read a Confluence page by ID and return a cleaned, size-bounded summary of its content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pageId | Yes | Confluence page ID | |
| maxChars | No | Maximum characters of page body (1000-50000). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tool | Yes | ||
| issueKey | No | ||
| markdown | Yes | ||
| warnings | Yes | ||
| schemaVersion | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds the non-obvious behavioral trait that the returned content is cleaned and truncated to a size bound rather than returned raw. It does not mention authentication requirements or what happens at truncation, so it stops short of full transparency.
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?
A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb, resource, and retrieval key before the output characteristic. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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?
With an output schema present and both parameters fully documented, the description only needs to convey the operation and its output nature, which it does. The remaining ambiguity is what 'cleaned' means (format, loss of macros/images) and error behavior, which are minor for a simple read tool.
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 100%, so both pageId and maxChars are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the ID-based lookup and the size-bounding concept but adds no format or syntax detail beyond structured fields; 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 (Read), a specific resource (a Confluence page), and the selection key (by ID), plus what it returns (a cleaned, size-bounded summary). This cleanly separates it from confluence_search, which locates pages rather than fetching one by identifier.
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?
The phrase 'by ID' implies the precondition for use, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer confluence_search, and no note about behavior on missing or inaccessible pages. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.