eMCP for Evolution CMS

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Content Ancestors Tool

evo.content.ancestors

Read-only

Retrieve a content node's ancestor hierarchy with optional depth limits and pagination to inspect parent paths and manage CMS structure.

Instructions

Read ancestors of a content node with optional depth cap and pagination.

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "limit": "<limit>"
    },
    "name": "evo.content.ancestors"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`depth`	No
`limit`	Yes
`offset`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description usefully adds that depth can be capped and results paginated, but it does not say whether the node itself is included, what order ancestors come back in, or what happens when depth is null.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the optional modifiers are placed after the core action. It is terse to the point of under-specification rather than verbose.

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 four-parameter read tool with no output schema and no documented schema fields, the description is minimally adequate: the operation and its two option categories are named. Missing are the identity semantics of 'id', traversal ordering, and whether pagination is by depth level or flat ancestor list.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only loosely gestures at depth/limit/offset and says nothing about the required 'id' parameter's meaning or the default/semantics of a null depth. Two of four parameters remain effectively undocumented anywhere.

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 ('Read ancestors of a content node') plus the scope of options, so an agent can tell this is the upward-traversal tool. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the downward/adjacent siblings (descendants, children, siblings), but the direction is unambiguous.

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, no exclusions, and no mention of a prerequisite beyond the required id. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is for lineage/breadcrumb retrieval rather than subtree listing.

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