Concrete CMS MCP Server

update_page_content

Destructive

Update Concrete CMS page block content by creating a new version, remapping block IDs, and applying block edits without approving the version.

Instructions

Update page block content safely. Creates a new editable page version (PUT page), remaps block IDs, then updates each block (PUT area). Provide blockID values from the version you inspected. Does not approve the new version.

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>",
      "blocks": "<blocks>"
    },
    "name": "update_page_content"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No	Optional page metadata for the PUT page step (name, description, type, template, attributes). Send empty/omit to only create a version.
`blocks`	Yes	Blocks to update. blockID must match the layout before this call; the tool remaps IDs after creating a new version.
`pageID`	Yes	ID of the page to update

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

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

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds real value by disclosing the multi-step version-create-and-remap workflow and the important caveat that the resulting version is left unapproved. It does not cover failure behavior (e.g., a partially applied block update or an orphaned unapproved version), which matters for a destructive multi-step mutation.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the outcome and followed by the mechanism, the key input requirement, and the caveat; no sentence is filler. The PUT page / PUT area jargon is compact but slightly opaque to an agent unfamiliar with the HTTP verbs behind the tool.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a nested three-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the mechanism, the input precondition, and the approval caveat, which is most of what an agent needs to call it correctly. It omits what is returned (presumably the new version or page ID) and how errors or partial failures are surfaced.

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 is 3; each parameter and nested property is already documented, including the optional page metadata and the meaning of blockID. The description's only added guidance on parameters restates the schema requirement that blockID come from the inspected version, so it does little beyond structured data.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Update page block content") and backs it with the concrete implementation sequence: creates a version (PUT page), remaps block IDs, then updates blocks (PUT area). That mechanism distinguishes it from the lower-level sibling update-block-in-page-area. It stops short of naming that sibling directly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"Provide blockID values from the version you inspected" implies a prerequisite inspection step (get_page_content / get-page-version) and "Does not approve the new version" implies a follow-up approval action, so usage is reasonably implied. However, it never names the alternative tools (update-block-in-page-area, update-page-version-by-page-id-and-version-id) or states when one should be chosen over the other, leaving the agent to work out routing.

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