Skip to main content
Glama
xiandan-erizo

Confluence MCP Server

by xiandan-erizo
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

50%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: get_confluence_page retrieves a specific page by ID, while search_confluence performs a broader content search. There is no overlap in functionality, making it easy for an agent to select the appropriate tool based on whether it needs a known page or wants to find pages matching a query.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_confluence_page and search_confluence) with snake_case naming. The verbs 'get' and 'search' are appropriate and distinct, and the naming scheme is predictable across the set.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only 2 tools, this server feels severely under-scoped for a Confluence integration. A typical Confluence server would need tools for creating, updating, deleting pages, managing spaces, and handling attachments, among others. This minimal set limits agents to read-only operations, which is inadequate for most workflows.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool surface is significantly incomplete for a Confluence domain. It only supports retrieving and searching pages, missing essential CRUD operations (create, update, delete), space management, user operations, and content manipulation. Agents will face dead ends when trying to perform basic tasks like editing or organizing content.

  • Average 2.8/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While '获取' (get) implies a read operation, the description doesn't address authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens with invalid page IDs. It mentions returning a dictionary but provides no details about its structure or content.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness3/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is reasonably concise with three brief sections, but the structure is somewhat inefficient. The 'Args' and 'Returns' sections use valuable space to state what's already evident from the parameter names and return type declaration, rather than providing meaningful additional information.

    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?

    For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what information the returned dictionary contains, how to handle different page ID formats, authentication requirements, or error scenarios. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively without trial and error.

    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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'page_id: 页面ID' (page ID) and 'ctx: MCP 上下文' (MCP context), but provides no meaningful semantic information about what constitutes a valid page ID, format expectations, or how the context parameter should be used. The description adds minimal value beyond what's obvious from parameter names.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose4/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states the tool's purpose as '获取 Confluence 页面详细信息' (Get Confluence page details), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling tool 'search_confluence', which likely searches for pages rather than retrieving details of a specific page.

    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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when to use 'get_confluence_page' versus 'search_confluence', nor any context about prerequisites or appropriate use cases. The agent must infer usage 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.

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return type ('Dict: 包含搜索结果的字典') but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what the search covers (e.g., titles only, full text). This leaves significant gaps for a search operation.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness4/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is appropriately sized with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter and return details in a structured format. It's front-loaded with the main function, though the formatting includes extra whitespace that slightly reduces efficiency.

    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?

    Given no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers basic purpose and parameters but lacks crucial context like search scope, result format details, authentication needs, or error cases, making it inadequate for a search tool with two parameters.

    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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds basic semantics for 'query' (search keywords, auto-converted to string) and 'limit' (result count limit, default 10), which helps beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't fully explain parameter constraints or interactions, leaving some ambiguity.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose4/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states the tool's purpose as '搜索 Confluence 页面内容' (search Confluence page content), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_confluence_page', which might retrieve specific pages rather than search across content.

    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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like the sibling 'get_confluence_page'. It mentions parameters but doesn't explain the context or scenarios where searching is appropriate versus direct retrieval.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

ops-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

ops-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/xiandan-erizo/ops-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server