eMCP for Evolution CMS

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Content Children Range Tool

evo.content.children_range

Read-only

Reads child nodes of a parent node by menuindex position range, enabling retrieval of a defined slice of children using from, to, limit, and offset.

Instructions

Read child nodes by menuindex position range for a parent node.

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>",
      "from": "<from>",
      "limit": "<limit>"
    },
    "name": "evo.content.children_range"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`to`	No
`from`	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 that this is a safe read operation. The description adds the menuindex range scoping behavior, but does not disclose whether the range is inclusive, how results are ordered, or how limit and offset interact with from and to.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes to purpose and scope.

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?

With five parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no output schema, the one-sentence description is too thin for reliable invocation. It does not clarify parameter semantics, range inclusivity, pagination behavior, or what the returned child nodes include.

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% across five parameters, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It implies that id is the parent node and that from/to select a menuindex range, but it does not explain limit, offset, or the exact role of each range boundary, leaving an agent to infer parameter behavior.

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 names a specific verb ('Read'), resource ('child nodes'), and scope ('by menuindex position range for a parent node'). It distinguishes this range-based child reader from unqualified child or sibling tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with the closest sibling.

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?

The use case is implied: retrieve child nodes only within a menuindex position range under a parent. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives such as reading all children or siblings, and no prerequisites beyond the parent id being required.

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