eMCP for Evolution CMS

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Content Create Tool

evo.write.content.create

Creates a new Evolution CMS document under a specified parent using field values, with optional publishing and template variable support.

Instructions

Create a document under a parent. Requires new_document (and publish_document to create it published).

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": {
      "parent": "<parent>",
      "fields": "<fields>"
    },
    "name": "evo.write.content.create"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tvs`	No	Template variable values keyed by TV name
`fields`	Yes	Document columns; pagetitle is required. Allowed: pagetitle, longtitle, description, alias, introtext, content, menutitle, template, parent, published, pub_date, unpub_date, hidemenu, menuindex, isfolder, searchable, cacheable, richtext, type, contentType, content_dispo, link_attributes, alias_visible, hide_from_tree, show_in_search
`parent`	Yes	Parent document id, 0 for the site root

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds genuine auth context by naming the required capabilities new_document and publish_document and tying the second one to a specific state outcome. It does not say what is returned (document id), what happens if the parent id is invalid, or whether tvs values are validated against the template.

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?

Two short sentences with the core action first and the permission caveat second; nothing is padding. It is arguably over-compressed for a nested-object tool, but there is no wasted wording.

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 create tool with a nested fields object (24 allowed columns) and a tvs map, the description covers the call precondition but leaves the agent without the success payload or any note on how published-in-fields relates to the publish sibling. Since there is no output schema, the absence of return-value guidance is a real gap.

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 parent, fields and tvs are already documented in the schema, including the full allowed column list. The description only adds indirect meaning by implying the 'published' column interacts with the publish_document permission; it says nothing about tvs or about the required pagetitle column.

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 ('Create a document') plus the scoping constraint ('under a parent'), which is enough to separate it from read-side siblings like evo.content.get and from evo.write.content.update. It does not explicitly contrast itself with evo.write.content.publish, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Gives a real prerequisite ('Requires new_document') and a conditional one ('publish_document to create it published'), which tells the agent when the call will succeed. It offers no explicit alternative routing, e.g. that modification of an existing document goes to evo.write.content.update or that publishing after creation goes to evo.write.content.publish.

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