Concrete CMS MCP Server

get-groups

Read-only

Retrieve a paginated list of Concrete CMS groups sorted by ID ascending; use after and limit to page through results.

Instructions

Returns a list of Group objects, sorted by ID ascending.

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-groups"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`after`	No	The ID of the current object to start after.
`limit`	No	The number of objects to return. Must be 100 or less. Defaults to 10.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

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

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds only the sort order as extra behavioral context. It does not mention result size limits, pagination behavior, or whether an empty list is possible.

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, though it is close to a bare restatement of the title/annotation title rather than an expansion.

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 read-only list tool with a fully documented two-parameter schema and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin. It leaves paging workflow and the shape of a Group implicit, which matters slightly given the adjacent get_group_by_id sibling.

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 only two optional parameters (after, limit), both documented in the schema including the 100-item cap and default of 10. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ("Returns a list of Group objects") and adds the ordering ("sorted by ID ascending"). It implicitly distinguishes itself from get_group_by_id in the sibling set, though it never states that distinction explicitly.

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 list endpoint versus get_group_by_id, and no mention of how to page through results. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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