Retrieve the version history of a Confluence page with optional body format and cursor pagination to navigate through changes.
List page version history with optional body representation and cursor pagination.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sort | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| page_id | Yes | ||
| max_chars | No | ||
| body_format | No | storage |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination and body representation, but does not specify default behavior, ordering, side effects (likely none, but not confirmed), or rate limits. The non-destructive nature is implied but not explicit.
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 one concise sentence, front-loading the core purpose. It uses minimal words and covers the key optional features. No wasted or redundant content.
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?
Given the complexity of 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not describe the response structure, available parameters' behavior, or specific usage scenarios. Adequate for a basic understanding, but a caller would need to inspect the schema or more.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, meaning the description must compensate for understanding parameters. The description mentions body representation (body_format) and cursor pagination (cursor), but does not explain other parameters like sort, limit, page_id, or max_chars. Only a few parameters are given meaning.
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 tool lists page version history. It mentions optional body representation and cursor pagination, but does not explicitly differentiate from related siblings like confluence_get_page_version or confluence_get_content_history, though the plural 'versions' implies a listing function.
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 description provides the context of listing version history, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as confluence_get_page_version for a single version. There is no mention of when not to use it or references to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.