Webflow MCP Server

components_get_content

Fetch the full content structure of a Webflow component, including text, images, and nested elements, by providing site and component identifiers.

Instructions

Get the content structure and data for a specific component including text, images, and nested components.

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": {
      "site_id": "<site_id>",
      "component_id": "<component_id>"
    },
    "name": "components_get_content"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Maximum number of records to be returned (max limit: 100)
`offset`	No	Offset used for pagination if the results have more than limit records.
`site_id`	Yes	Unique identifier for the Site.
`localeId`	No	Unique identifier for a specific locale. Applicable when using localization.
`component_id`	Yes	Unique identifier for the Component.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.7.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation but does not disclose pagination behavior (despite limit/offset parameters), the exact return structure, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a content retrieval tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the core purpose.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters including pagination controls, but no output schema or annotations. The description fails to explain the return format or how limit/offset work, leaving the agent to discover critical behavior through other means.

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 parameters are well-documented. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond mentioning text, images, and nested components, but does not clarify the role of limit/offset in pagination. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('content structure and data for a specific component'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like components_list and components_update_content by focusing on the content retrieval aspect.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear context on when to use the tool—when you need the content of a component—but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It's sufficient for most cases but lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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