Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Concrete CMS MCP Server

Concrete CMS MCP Server

by concrete5-community
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

get-file-by-id

Read-only

Retrieve a file from a Concrete CMS site by its ID, optionally including custom attributes, to access file details for content management or upload workflows.

Instructions

Find a file by its ID

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-file-by-id"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
includesNoincludes parameter

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0-alpha.1

TDQS

C2.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description is not responsible for the safety profile. However, it adds nothing beyond that: no behavior on a missing/invalid ID, no note on what a "file" object contains, no auth or scope requirements, and no mention of how the includes option changes the response.

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?

One short sentence with no filler, so it is as concise as possible. But the brevity is the result of under-specification rather than disciplined front-loading; there is nothing substantive to front-load.

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 simple read-only lookup, returning no output schema and taking one optional parameter, a minimal description could suffice — but the agent still cannot tell how to supply the ID (absent from the schema) or what effect the includes array has. That gap matters more than the tool's low complexity.

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 coverage is nominally 100%, so baseline 3 applies, but the schema's own text ("includes parameter") is vacuous and the description does not clarify what custom_attributes inclusion yields. Notably, the description references an ID that does not appear in the input schema at all, leaving the actual lookup key undocumented in either place.

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?

"Find a file by its ID" is essentially a restatement of the tool name and title, adding no specificity beyond the verb+resource already conveyed. It does nothing to differentiate this from siblings such as get-files, get-file-by-id variants, or move-file-to-location.

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: no statement that this should be used when the unique ID is known and get-files used when searching by name/other attributes. No prerequisites, no alternatives, no exclusions are given.

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