Concrete CMS MCP Server

delete-page-by-id

Destructive

Deletes a Concrete CMS page permanently by its page ID, letting you remove unwanted or outdated content from your site programmatically.

Instructions

Delete a page 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": {
      "pageID": "<pageID>"
    },
    "name": "delete-page-by-id"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`pageID`	Yes	ID of page 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 safety is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether the deletion is permanent or recoverable, what happens to child pages or blocks attached to the page, or what permissions are required. For a destructive operation, that is a meaningful gap.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of the missing usage and behavior detail rather than through disciplined compression.

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?

This is an irreversible destructive action with no output schema, and the description never explains the effect of deletion, cascading consequences, or error behavior for a nonexistent ID. With annotations covering only the safety hints, the description should carry more of that context and does not.

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 parameter and schema description coverage is 100% ("ID of page to delete", path location), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description merely repeats "by its ID" without adding format, scope, or example values, so 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 page") plus the lookup key ("by its ID"), which separates it from delete-block-by-id, delete-file-by-id and delete-user-by-id in the sibling list. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with update-page-by-id or get-page-by-id, but the resource-level distinction is unambiguous.

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, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling tools an agent might confuse it with. The only usage cue is the conventional CRUD naming, which the reader must infer.

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