Concrete CMS MCP Server

get-block-by-id

Read-only

Retrieve a Concrete CMS block by ID and optionally include associated pages to inspect or manage specific content.

Instructions

Find 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": "get-block-by-id"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`blockID`	Yes	ID of block to return
`includes`	No	includes parameter

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

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

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered, but the description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of what constitutes a block, whether IDs are globally unique, or what happens when the ID doesn't exist. With annotations handling the safety profile, this is a missed opportunity to add behavioral context rather than a contradiction.

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 zero padding, front-loaded with the operation and resource. It is efficiently sized for a two-parameter read tool, though its brevity stems partly from under-specification.

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 simple single-record read with 100% schema coverage and a readOnlyHint, the definition is minimally sufficient to call the tool correctly. However, with no output schema, the description could have said what a block record looks like or what 'includes: pages' expands, leaving a real gap for the caller.

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%, with blockID documented as "ID of block to return," so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no extra meaning, such as the format of block IDs or what the 'includes' enum of 'pages' does, so the 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?

"Find a block by its ID" names a verb (find) and resource (block), but it is essentially a restatement of the tool name and title with no added specificity. It does not distinguish this from siblings like get-child-pages or get_page_content, which also return block-like 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as get-child-pages, get_page_content, or delete-block-by-id. The agent must infer that this is a single-block lookup by ID, which is possible but not stated.

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