Concrete CMS MCP Server

update-block-in-page-area

Destructive

Modify an existing block's content in a specific page area of a Concrete CMS site by supplying the page ID, area handle, and block ID.

Instructions

Updates a block within a page area.

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>",
      "areaHandle": "<areaHandle>",
      "blockID": "<blockID>"
    },
    "name": "update-block-in-page-area"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`value`	No	Key/Value object that maps to the request array that powers the block editing interface.
`pageID`	Yes	ID of page
`blockID`	Yes	ID of block
`areaHandle`	Yes	Area Name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

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

TDQS

C2.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds nothing beyond that. For a destructive mutation it should clarify whether the block's existing content is fully replaced or merged, and whether any permission prerequisites apply.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no wasted words, but its brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency. There is no front-loaded detail beyond the bare verb and resource.

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?

This is a destructive mutation with a nested object parameter and no output schema, so the description carries real burden. It leaves unclear what happens to existing block content, what keys the value object accepts, and what a successful update returns.

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 the baseline of 3 applies and the schema already documents pageID, areaHandle, and blockID. The description adds no meaning for the nested 'value' object, whose accepted keys remain unexplained in both places.

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?

The sentence 'Updates a block within a page area' restates the tool name almost word for word and adds no distinguishing detail. With siblings like add-block-to-page-area, delete-block-from-page-area, and update_page_content, an agent learns nothing about which one this is versus those.

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, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance at all. The description does not say how this differs from update_page_content or from adding a new block, leaving the agent to infer routing from the name alone.

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