Plone Dynamic Pages MCP Server

by codesyntax

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v2.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clear, distinct purposes (e.g., get_site_definitions vs. get_dynamic_page_content). However, overlap exists between create_content and the specialized row creation tools, and between upload_file and upload_local_asset, which could lead to confusion about which to use.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using lowercase with underscores (e.g., create_content, patch_content, search_content). The naming is uniform and predictable, with no mixing of conventions.
Tool Count5/5
The server has 13 tools, which is within the ideal 3-15 range. Each tool serves a distinct functional need—configuration, CRUD, dynamic page operations, and file uploads—without being excessive or sparse.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers the core domain of Dynamic Page management, including creation, retrieval, update, delete, search, and specialized row operations. A notable gap is the lack of a generic get_content tool for non-DynamicPage objects, but search_content can serve that purpose, so the gap is minor.
Average 2.7/5 across 13 of 13 tools scored. Lowest: 2.1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 7 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
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
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

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only states 'Creates any content type'. It does not disclose the mutation side effects, authentication requirements (token/cookie), validation behavior, or response format. This is a significant gap for a creation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise in length, but it is under-specified rather than effectively concise. It does not provide enough information to be useful, and the brevity is not a virtue given the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 5 parameters, a nested data object, and no annotations or output schema. The description provides almost no context about how to structure requests, what data format is expected, or what happens after creation. It is completely inadequate for an agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters. It mentions 'content_type' indirectly but does not explain the 'data' object, 'api_url', or auth credentials. The description fails entirely to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.
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 primary action ('Creates') and the resource ('any content type in Plone'). It differentiates from sibling tools like patch_content (update) and delete_content (delete), but the scope of 'any content type' is broad and not precise about which content types are supported.
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 alternatives. There are sibling creation tools like create_dynamic_page_row and create_dynamic_page_row_featured, and the description does not explain when to choose create_content over them or mention any prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It merely restates that it 'creates' the object, which is inherent in the name, and omits any side effects, authentication needs, expected parent relationship, or response behavior. This provides no additional transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief but this is under-specification, not effective conciseness. It conveys no information beyond the tool name, so it does not earn its place as a useful description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool handles authentication tokens, a parent row URL, and a nested feat_data object, and there is no output schema. The description provides no operational context, expected behavior, or relationship to sibling tools, making it severely incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 25%, with api_url the only described parameter. The description itself does not mention any parameters, leaving feat_data (a complex nested object), token, and cookie entirely unexplained. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.
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 tool creates a DynamicPageRowFeatured in Plone, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool create_dynamic_page_row, leaving ambiguity about what 'featured' specifically means.
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 create_dynamic_page_row or create_content. It lacks any context on prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, so the agent must rely on the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Uploads a file to Plone' with no mention of authentication requirements (token/cookie parameters), the need for base64 encoding, or any other behavioral traits. The agent is left completely uninformed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified for a tool with 7 parameters and no annotations. It lacks essential structural elements like prerequisites or parameter guidance, making it more of an under-specification than genuinely concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is wholly inadequate. It does not explain the upload context, success/failure behavior, or how it relates to similar tools. The description appears complete only for a trivial tool, which this is not.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 14% (only file_data has a description). The description adds zero parameter information, failing to explain the meaning or usage of the other 6 parameters (token, cookie, api_url, etc.). With such low schema coverage, the description was expected to compensate but did not.
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 'Uploads a file to Plone' clearly states the action (upload) and the target resource (a file to Plone). It is specific enough to understand the basic purpose, but it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling 'upload_local_asset', which may also upload files.
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 information about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. Given the sibling tool 'upload_local_asset', the intended usage distinction is entirely absent.
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 only states that the tool creates a row, but does not disclose authentication requirements, side effects, idempotency, or any other behavioral traits beyond 'create'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one sentence and front-loaded, with no wasteful wording. However, it is under-specified for a complex create operation, so it is not appropriately sized for the tool's needs.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the moderate complexity (4 params, nested object) and lack of annotations and output schema, this description is severely incomplete. It provides almost no contextual information about what a DynamicPageRow is, how row_data should be structured, or what the response will be.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 25%, and the description adds no information about token, cookie, api_url, or row_data. It does not compensate for the largely undocumented parameters, leaving the agent without semantic guidance for invoking the tool.
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 'Creates a DynamicPageRow in Plone' clearly states the verb and resource. It distinguishes the action but does not differentiate from the sibling tool create_dynamic_page_row_featured, so it lacks explicit differentiation.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_dynamic_page_row_featured, nor any context about prerequisites or intended scenarios. The description provides no usage direction.
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, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Fetches' (implying a read operation). It does not mention authentication requirements, return format, error behavior, or any side effects, which is a significant gap for a tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, which is efficient, but it is under-specified. It lacks essential context about parameters, usage, and output, so while it is short, it does not earn its place as a complete guide.
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 three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description provides only the basic action. It does not explain return values, authentication context, or when this tool should be preferred, making it incomplete for reliable invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds no explanation of the three parameters (token, cookie, api_url). The description does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions, leaving the agent without sufficient guidance on how to invoke the tool correctly.
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 uses a specific verb ('Fetches') and identifies the resource ('site-specific definitions (Schemas and Row Types) from Plone'), making it clear what the tool returns. It does not explicitly name alternatives among siblings, but the resource type distinguishes it from content-fetching tools like get_dynamic_page_content.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_dynamic_page_content or search_content. The description only states what it fetches, leaving the appropriate usage context unstated.
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, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Moves a row to a new position,' which conveys the core mutation but omits any side effects, constraints, or return behavior. It does not mention whether it preserves other row data, how out-of-bound positions are handled, or if any permissions are needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, so it avoids waste. However, it is underspecified to the point of minimal information, which is not effective conciseness. It could be improved with a bit more context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema parameter coverage. The description is a bare statement of action and does not explain return values, error handling, or the meaning of 'position' in context. For a mutation tool with several parameters, this is severely incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the 5 parameters. It provides no explanation of row_id, position, folder_url, token, or cookie. The parameter names offer some hints, but the description does not clarify key semantics like the format or range of 'position' or the role of 'folder_url'.
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 states the action clearly ('Moves a row') and implies the target resource is a row in a dynamic page, especially given the tool name. It distinguishes from siblings because no other sibling tool is a move operation, but it lacks explicit context that it operates on a 'dynamic page row' and what 'position' means in that context.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, whether it can be used across dynamic pages, or scenarios where create/patch would be more appropriate. There is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' context.
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, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only states 'searches.' It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, authentication requirements, result format, pagination, or any side effects, which is a significant gap for a search tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no redundancy, which is appropriate in length. However, it is under-specified for a six-parameter tool, so it earns a middle score for conciseness but not for substance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's six parameters, absence of annotations, and lack of an output schema, the one-sentence description is critically incomplete. It offers no information about return values, parameter usage, prerequisites, or the overall context for invocation, making it inadequate for correct use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has six parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any of them. The agent is left to guess the meaning of 'path', 'query', 'token', 'cookie', and 'portal_type', and the tool description provides no compensation for this lack of schema clarity.
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 uses a specific verb 'Searches' and identifies the resource 'content in the Plone site,' which distinguishes it from sibling content creation/deletion tools. However, it lacks specificity about search scope or capabilities, so it is clear but not maximally distinguished.
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. There is no mention of search-specific use cases, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like get_dynamic_page_content, leaving the agent without context for 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 that it sets session context but does not explain whether this overwrites existing credentials, whether it validates the credentials, how long the session lasts, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a state-mutating tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence and front-loads the primary action, but it is under-specified. It earns its place but leaves out crucial operational details, so conciseness comes at the cost of clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This tool is a session setup operation with no output schema and no annotations. The description fails to explain when to call it, which parameters are needed, how it interacts with sibling tools like check_credentials_status, and what side effects occur. It is inadequate for an agent to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero description coverage for all three parameters (token, cookie, api_url), and the description does not explain their roles beyond loosely mentioning 'credentials' and 'site URL'. The agent cannot determine which parameter is required, how they relate, or valid formats from this description.
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 uses a specific verb ('Sets') and names the resource ('default site URL and credentials for the current session'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by indicating it establishes session-level context, which no other sibling tool does.
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, no prerequisites, and no mention of ordering relative to other calls. It only implies that it configures the session, leaving the agent to infer that it should be called before other authenticated operations.
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, the description must carry the full transparency burden. It only states the mutation and the HTTP method, but doesn't disclose side effects, authorization requirements, or behavior for non-existent objects or partial updates.
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 sentence with no filler words, presenting the core purpose directly. It is perfectly concise and well-structured.
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 tool's complexity (nested data object, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too minimal. It only covers the basic function and leaves out return values, parameter semantics, and edge cases, making it incomplete for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the four parameters (data, token, cookie, content_url). The agent receives no guidance on how to construct the request, making the description inadequate for parameter understanding.
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 tool updates an existing Plone object and notes the HTTP method (PATCH), making the purpose obvious. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like move_dynamic_page_row, which also modifies content.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when an existing object needs modification, but it doesn't state when to prefer this over create_content or delete_content, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.
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, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only mentions reading and uploading, but omits important details such as authentication requirements (token/cookie), side effects (e.g., creating or overwriting content), and error behavior. This is insufficient for a mutating operation.
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, direct sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and immediately conveys the core action, making it an excellent example of conciseness.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and 4 parameters, this 9-word description is too sparse. It does not explain how to invoke the tool successfully, what the response looks like, or any caveats. The description covers only the surface functionality, leaving the agent to guess on critical usage details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly explains local_path (local file) and api_url (Plone endpoint), but completely fails to clarify the meaning or purpose of token and cookie parameters, which are likely authentication credentials. The description adds minimal value over the raw schema.
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 the tool reads a local file and uploads it to Plone. It specifies both the source (local filesystem) and destination (Plone), distinguishing it from sibling tools like upload_file, which likely handles other upload scenarios.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like upload_file, or what prerequisites (e.g., session context, authentication) might be needed. The description solely states the action without contextual or exclusionary information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states the tool fetches data (implying read-only) and specifies the return content, but it does not mention authentication requirements (despite token/cookie params) or any other side effects or limitations. The description adds some context but lacks depth.
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 description is a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, but its brevity contributes to incomplete information. It earns a slightly higher score for succinctness, though not top marks because it omits key details.
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 3 parameters (including token and cookie for authentication), no output schema, and no annotations. The description only covers the basic purpose and return content, leaving out critical context such as authentication requirements, parameter meanings, and the structure of the returned JSON. The description is inadequate for a tool with this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions), and the description fails to compensate by explaining any parameters. The description does not indicate that page_url identifies the DynamicPage, nor does it clarify the roles of token and cookie. This leaves the agent without essential information for correct invocation.
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 'Fetches the full JSON structure of a DynamicPage including rows and featured items,' using a specific verb ('fetches') and resource ('DynamicPage'), and explicitly mentions the content included. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_content or get_site_definitions.
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 for when to use the tool (when the full JSON structure of a DynamicPage is needed), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Given siblings like search_content, some guidance on alternatives would improve clarity, but the context is otherwise clear.
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, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that confirmation is required, but fails to state that deletion is irreversible, any cascading effects, authentication needs, or return behavior. The destructive nature is implied by the name but not elaborated, leaving a significant gap for a mutation 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 two short sentences, with every word adding value. 'Deletes a Plone object' states the action, and 'Confirmation required' conveys a critical prerequisite, with no redundancy or padding.
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 is a destructive operation with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description only provides the basic action and confirmation flag. It omits authentication context, error handling, and post-deletion behavior, making it incomplete for reliable invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter meaning. It only hints at the 'confirmed' parameter by stating confirmation is required, but gives no meaning for content_url, token, or cookie. This is insufficient for a 4-parameter tool.
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 verb 'Deletes' plus the resource 'Plone object' clearly states the tool's function. It is distinct from siblings like create_content and patch_content, and the confirmation requirement adds specific scope.
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 clearly implies use when a Plone object needs to be removed, which distinguishes it from the create and patch siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention any alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It states that the tool inspects arguments ('provided in the arguments'), which is a useful scoping detail. However, it does not disclose return value format, error behavior, or that it performs no network call. This is a minimal but non-misleading disclosure, adequate for a simple check.
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 that contains no filler words. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter check with no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It identifies the tool's purpose and parameters. It does not explicitly mention return values or usage context, but given the low complexity, the information provided is sufficient for an agent to select the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It names both parameters (token, cookie) and clarifies they are Plone credentials, adding meaning beyond the raw schema. It does not explain format or precedence, but the essential semantics are covered.
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 the tool's function: checking whether Plone credentials (token or cookie) are provided. It uses a specific verb ('checks') and resource ('Plone credentials'), and the parameter names make it easily distinguishable from sibling tools, which focus on content and file operations.
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 implies usage: to verify credential presence before making authenticated requests. No explicit alternatives are given, but no sibling tool performs a similar check, so differentiation is inherent. The context is clear, though it could be stronger with an explicit when-to-use recommendation.
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

Copy to your README.md:

[![cs-dynamicpages-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/codesyntax/cs-dynamicpages-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/codesyntax/cs-dynamicpages-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![cs-dynamicpages-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/codesyntax/cs-dynamicpages-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/codesyntax/cs-dynamicpages-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/codesyntax/cs-dynamicpages-mcp'

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