Concrete CMS MCP Server

delete-block-from-page-area

Destructive

Removes a specified block from a page area in Concrete CMS using the page ID, area handle, and block ID. Use it to delete unwanted content blocks from a page layout.

Instructions

Deletes a block from a page area.

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": {
      "pageID": "<pageID>",
      "areaHandle": "<areaHandle>",
      "blockID": "<blockID>"
    },
    "name": "delete-block-from-page-area"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`pageID`	Yes	ID of page
`blockID`	Yes	ID of block
`areaHandle`	Yes	Area Name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

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

TDQS

C2.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether the block itself is destroyed or merely detached from the area, whether existing content is recoverable, or what permission/error conditions apply.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than economical. Nothing beyond the tool name is communicated.

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?

For a destructive three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description should clarify the effect (detach vs destroy), reversibility, and failure modes. Given the presence of closely related siblings, an agent lacks enough information to invoke this confidently.

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 pageID, blockID and areaHandle are already documented (albeit terse, e.g. 'Area Name'). The description adds no meaning about path semantics, ID formats, or the relationship between blockID and areaHandle; baseline 3 applies.

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 states a verb ('Deletes') and a resource ('a block from a page area'), which is more specific than the bare tool name, but it essentially paraphrases the name and title. It gives no basis for choosing this over the sibling delete-block-by-id or add-block-to-page-area/update-block-in-page-area.

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 when-to-use guidance and no exclusion of alternatives. With siblings like delete-block-by-id and update-block-in-page-area present, the agent must infer whether this removes the block from the area only or deletes the block outright.

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