Update a Confluence page's title only by providing page ID, new title, and explicit version number, leaving content unchanged.
Update only a page title using the v2 title endpoint and explicit version number.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | ||
| page_id | Yes | ||
| max_chars | No | ||
| minor_edit | No | ||
| version_number | Yes | ||
| version_message | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the endpoint and version number, but does not disclose the mutation side effects, failure modes, or consequences of providing an incorrect version number. It also omits any mention of how the title change affects the page or whether it is reversible. This is insufficient for a write operation.
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, concise sentence with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the technical details (endpoint, version number) are secondary. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the lack of substantive 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?
For a tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain parameter semantics, return values, prerequisites, versioning requirements, or how the title update interacts with the page. An agent would be unable to construct a correct call without external knowledge.
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 schema provides no explanations for properties. The description does not compensate: it does not mention any parameter names, purposes, or relationships. The presence of parameters like max_chars, minor_edit, and version_message is entirely unexplained, leaving an agent unable to determine correct values or 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 states a specific action ('Update only a page title') with a clear resource and scope. 'Only' differentiates it from the broader confluence_update_page tool, and the mention of the v2 title endpoint and explicit version number adds technical precision. It is not a tautology and clearly identifies the tool's unique 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 implies the tool is for title-only updates but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like confluence_update_page. It lacks any context on prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions under which the tool should or should not be chosen. The scope is implied, not explicitly guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.