Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Contentrain MCP

Contentrain MCP

Official
by Contentrain
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

contentrain_content_status

DestructiveIdempotent

Change content entry status to publish, unpublish, archive, or set draft/review states. Publishing validates targeted entries first and commits changes through the project's review or auto-merge workflow.

Instructions

Change the status of content entries — this is how an entry is published, unpublished or archived. Address records the way their meta is laid out: COLLECTION — "entry_ids"; DOCUMENT — "slugs"; SINGLETON and DICTIONARY — neither (one record per locale). i18n models change every supported locale unless "locale" is given. Setting status "published" validates the targeted entries first; if they have errors, nothing is committed. Records already at the requested status are reported as unchanged and not rewritten. contentrain_content_list shows each entry's current status under "meta". Changes are committed to git and follow the project's review or auto-merge workflow — do NOT manually edit .contentrain/meta files.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "model": "<model>",
      "status": "<status>"
    },
    "name": "contentrain_content_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modelYesModel ID
slugsNoDocument slugs (document models only) — a document is addressed by slug, the same identity contentrain_content_save uses
localeNoScope the change to one locale (i18n models only; defaults to every supported locale)
statusYesNew status
entry_idsNoEntry IDs (collection models only)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.0.63

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description supplies the operational detail behind those flags: publishing validates first and commits nothing on validation errors, already-matching records are reported unchanged and not rewritten, and changes go through git plus the project's review or auto-merge workflow. That is real consequence disclosure for a mutation, not restatement.

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 action and its alternatives are front-loaded, and every sentence carries non-redundant information (addressing rules, validation gate, no-op handling, git workflow). It runs as one dense paragraph with heavy quotation, which is efficient but would scan faster with light separation between addressing rules and side-effect rules.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a multi-model-type mutation with five parameters and no output schema, the description covers everything needed to invoke it correctly: identity per model kind, locale scoping, validation gating, idempotent no-ops, and where the change lands. Nothing material is left for the agent to guess.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so per-field meaning is already documented; the description adds the cross-parameter addressing model that the schema cannot express — which identifier applies to which model type, and that omitting locale on an i18n model changes every locale. This resolves the main ambiguity an agent would hit when deciding which arrays to populate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Opens with a specific verb and resource ("Change the status of content entries") and immediately disambiguates the outcome ("this is how an entry is published, unpublished or archived"). That framing separates it cleanly from content_save, content_delete, and content_list, which do different things to the same records.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives concrete when-to-use routing per model kind (COLLECTION uses entry_ids, DOCUMENT uses slugs, SINGLETON/DICTIONARY use neither) and tells the agent to read current status via contentrain_content_list. It also states the exclusion "do NOT manually edit .contentrain/meta files" and the conditional behavior for i18n models without a locale.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools