Concrete CMS MCP Server

get-site-by-id

Read-only

Fetch a Concrete CMS site using its site ID to identify and work with the right site for content management or user operations.

Instructions

Find a site 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": {
      "siteID": "<siteID>"
    },
    "name": "get-site-by-id"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`siteID`	Yes	ID of Site to return

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?

The annotation already declares readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered structurally and the description adds nothing further. It does not say what happens if the ID does not exist, whether the lookup is a 404-style failure, or anything about the shape of the returned site record.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with zero padding or redundancy. The tradeoff is under-specification rather than verbosity, so it earns credit on conciseness but nothing extra.

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 single-parameter read-only lookup with full schema coverage, the definition is minimally adequate. It omits return shape and not-found behavior, which an agent would need when integrating this call, though the annotation carries the safety profile.

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% and the single path parameter siteID is documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description contributes no additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema already states.

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 states a verb ("Find") and a resource ("site") scoped by identifier, so the basic operation is clear. However, it is essentially the tool name restated in prose and gives no differentiation from nearby siblings such as get-sites or get-default-site, leaving the agent to infer the distinction from names alone.

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 instead of get-sites (listing) or get-default-site (no ID needed). The agent must infer the selection rule, and no prerequisite about where a siteID comes from is offered.

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