eMCP for Evolution CMS

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Content Children Tool

evo.content.children

Read-only

Read direct child content nodes of a parent by ID with pagination (limit and offset) to inspect or manage scoped content in Evolution CMS.

Instructions

Read direct children of a content node with 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.children"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a safe read, so the description's main added value is disclosing that results are paginated. It says nothing about ordering, default page size, or what happens when offset exceeds the child count, which are the remaining behavioral questions for a paged read.

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 ten-word sentence with the scope qualifier front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though it leaves too much unsaid rather than being padded.

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 simple read-only three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core intent but omits the return shape assumptions (children array only, or children plus cursor/total) and pagination defaults. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent would hit on first call.

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 all three parameters (id, limit, offset) are undocumented in structured data. The description only gestures at them via 'content node' and 'pagination', without clarifying id format, limit bounds, or offset semantics — meaning it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Read') plus a precise resource ('direct children of a content node') and adds the pagination scope. The word 'direct' is the key differentiator from the descendants sibling, though the alternative is not named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'direct children' hints that non-recursive traversal applies, leaving the agent to infer that evo.content.descendants is the choice for deeper traversal. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite statement.

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