Concrete CMS MCP Server

delete-block-by-id

Destructive

Deletes a Concrete CMS block using its numeric ID, useful when removing unwanted or outdated content from a page.

Instructions

Delete a block by its ID

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": {
      "blockID": "<blockID>"
    },
    "name": "delete-block-by-id"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`blockID`	Yes	ID of block to delete

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0-alpha.1Aug 11, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether deletion is permanent, whether child blocks are cascaded, or what permissions are required for a destructive operation.

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?

A single short sentence with the action and selector front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification for a destructive tool.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a one-parameter delete tool with annotations covering the destructive nature and no output schema, the essentials are present. Missing is any note on irreversibility or cascade behavior, which matters for a destructive operation with an ambiguous sibling.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('ID of block to delete'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description's 'by its ID' merely echoes the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a block') plus the key selector ('by its ID'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling 'delete-block-from-page-area', which an agent could easily confuse with this one.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative is named despite a near-identical sibling ('delete-block-from-page-area') and a related 'get-block-by-id'. The agent must infer the choice from the tool name alone.

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