Retrieve Confluence attachment metadata and optionally include versions, labels, properties, operations, or collaborators.
Get attachment metadata and optional version, labels, properties, operations, or collaborators.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| version | No | ||
| max_chars | No | ||
| attachment_id | Yes | ||
| include_labels | No | ||
| include_versions | No | ||
| include_operations | No | ||
| include_properties | No | ||
| include_collaborators | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns metadata and can optionally include version, labels, properties, operations, or collaborators, but it does not describe the return format, default behaviors, or whether any side effects occur.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is slightly awkward grammatically, but it earns its place by summarizing the core operation and optional inclusions.
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 8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, this one-liner is inadequate. It leaves key parameters like max_chars and version unexplained and gives no guidance for choosing this over sibling tools.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only repeats the parameter names without explaining semantics; notably, max_chars is completely unexplained and version is ambiguous.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'attachment metadata', and enumerates the optional inclusions. It is not as explicit as naming sibling alternatives, but the single-attachment target is clear from the tool name and schema.
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 intended use is implied: call this when you need metadata for a specific attachment. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like confluence_list_attachments or confluence_get_content, so an agent must infer the routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.