Concrete CMS MCP Server

get-page-by-id

Read-only

Retrieve a Concrete CMS page by its numeric ID. Specify version and includes to return content, areas, files, or custom attributes.

Instructions

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

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`pageID`	Yes	ID of Page to return
`version`	No	Return the active version (default) or the most recent version
`includes`	No	includes parameter

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

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

TDQS

C2.5/5.0

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. Notably it omits the non-obvious behavior of the `version` parameter (active vs. most recent), which materially changes what is returned, and says nothing about what happens if the page ID does not exist.

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?

The single sentence is front-loaded and contains no filler, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficiency. There is room for one more sentence covering the version behavior without bloat.

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 read tool with three parameters, no output schema, and a crowded sibling namespace, the description does not do enough. The version and includes semantics and the distinction from listing/content siblings are left entirely to the schema and guesswork.

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%, so pageID, version, and includes are already documented in the schema, including the enum values. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which lands at the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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?

The description names a verb and resource (find a page) and the lookup key (its ID), so the basic operation is legible. But it is a near-verbatim restatement of the annotation title and gives no scope: it does not distinguish itself from get-pages, get-child-pages, get-page-versions-by-page-id, or get_page_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 choose this tool over the several similar siblings, and no exclusions. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is a single-page fetch by numeric ID rather than a listing or content fetch.

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