Skip to main content
Glama
SpringMT

microCMS MCP Server

by SpringMT
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: GetMicroCMSContent retrieves a specific item by ID, while SearchMicroCMS performs a broader query across content. There is no overlap in functionality, making it easy for an agent to choose the right tool for the task.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent naming pattern with a verb (Get or Search) followed by the domain (MicroCMS) and a noun (Content). They use consistent PascalCase styling, making the naming predictable and readable.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only two tools, the server feels under-scoped for a content management system. It lacks essential CRUD operations like create, update, or delete, which are typically expected for managing content. The count is too low for the apparent domain.

    Completeness2/5

    The toolset is severely incomplete for a CMS server. It only provides read operations (get and search), missing create, update, delete, and other lifecycle management functions. This will cause agent failures when full content management is required.

  • 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

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • 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?

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Search' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature (implied but not stated), potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens on errors. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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

    Conciseness5/5

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

    The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying the core action.

    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 the complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or behavioral context. For a search tool with multiple parameters and a sibling, more detail is needed to guide the agent effectively.

    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 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters (e.g., 'q' for search query, 'limit' for maximum results). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or usage tips. Baseline is 3 when schema does the heavy lifting.

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

    Purpose3/5

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

    The description 'Search content in MicroCMS' states the verb ('Search') and resource ('content in MicroCMS'), providing a basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what type of content or scope, and doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'GetMicroCMSContent', which might retrieve specific content versus searching. It's vague but functional.

    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?

    No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'GetMicroCMSContent'. The description implies a search operation but doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or alternatives. This leaves the agent without clear direction on tool selection.

    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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a read operation ('Get'), which implies non-destructive behavior, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the content ID doesn't exist. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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

    Conciseness5/5

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

    The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place in conveying the core functionality.

    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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., content object, error responses) or provide behavioral context needed for safe invocation. For a read operation with no structured safety hints, more detail would be helpful.

    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?

    The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all 4 parameters. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with additional context like examples or constraints.

    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 action ('Get') and resource ('specific content from MicroCMS by ID'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'SearchMicroCMS' by focusing on retrieval by ID rather than search operations. However, it could be more specific about what type of content is retrieved (e.g., blog posts, articles).

    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 'SearchMicroCMS'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing to know the content ID beforehand, or when not to use it (e.g., for listing content). This leaves the agent without clear usage context.

    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

microcms-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

microcms-mcp-server 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/SpringMT/microcms-mcp-server'

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