Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Concrete CMS MCP Server

Concrete CMS MCP Server

by concrete5-community
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

get-account

Read-only

Retrieves account information from a Concrete CMS site by sending a GET request to the account API endpoint, returning the current account details.

Instructions

Make a GET request to /ccm/api/1.0/account

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get-account"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0-alpha.1

TDQS

C2.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation, so the description's burden is lighter. The only extra information it supplies is the raw endpoint path, which adds nothing about what is returned, whether the call is authenticated, or how the account payload relates to other resources.

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?

It is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Its brevity is efficient, though it reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining what the call returns, and it does not. For a resource-fetch tool sitting among dozens of similar get-* siblings, the absence of any return-value or scope description leaves the agent guessing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4. The description neither helps nor harms here.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description only restates the tool name in HTTP terms: 'get-account' becomes 'Make a GET request to /ccm/api/1.0/account'. It never says what the account resource represents or what information comes back, and it gives no basis for distinguishing it from siblings such as get-system-info or get-user-by-id.

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 call this tool versus the many other read tools in the sibling list (get-system-info, get-user-by-id, get-users). No prerequisites or exclusions are stated, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools