Concrete CMS MCP Server

update-page-by-id

Destructive

Modify an existing Concrete CMS page by its ID, including page type, template, and attributes such as metadata and navigation settings.

Instructions

Update 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": "update-page-by-id"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No
`type`	No	The handle of the page type you want to apply to this page.
`pageID`	Yes	ID of page to update
`template`	No	The handle of the page template you want to apply to this page.
`attributes`	No
`description`	No

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 agent knows this is a destructive write; the description adds nothing beyond that. Critically, it does not say whether the nested `attributes` object is merged or fully replaced, whether omitted fields are cleared, or whether a page version is created — all essential for a destructive mutation.

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 economical and front-loaded, but here brevity reflects under-specification rather than discipline. Nothing in the sentence earns extra credit because it conveys no information beyond the tool name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive six-parameter mutation with a large nested attributes object and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot determine scope of change, merge semantics, or side effects from this definition.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 50%, and the description contributes no parameter meaning whatsoever — it does not explain the difference between `type` and `template` (both titled "Page Type"), nor how the nested `attributes` sub-fields (tags, thumbnail, exclusion flags) behave. The one thing it does convey, that pageID identifies the target, is already documented in the schema.

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 specific verb and resource ("Update a page by its ID"), which is more than a pure restatement of the name, but it gives no hint of what part of the page is updated. It fails to distinguish this tool from close siblings such as update_page_content, update-page-version-by-page-id-and-version-id, and add-page.

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 at all: nothing says whether this should be used for metadata versus page body content, nor when to prefer update_page_content or the page-version update tool. The agent must infer routing purely from the names of the siblings.

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