Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Agentic CMS

Agentic CMS

by intellieffect
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_content

Retrieve a single master content item by ID or slug to read its current body, hook, and CTA before updating or creating a variant.

Instructions

[Pipeline step 3 — Create (master)] Get a single master content item by id or slug. Use before update_content or create_variant to read the current body/hook/cta.

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_or_slug": "<id_or_slug>"
    },
    "name": "get_content"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
id_or_slugYesContent ID (UUID) or slug

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the useful payload fields (body/hook/cta) and that it is a read, but says nothing about behavior when the id/slug is not found, permission requirements, or whether the read is cached. Adequate but incomplete for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Two tight sentences with the pipeline-step context front-loaded and no filler. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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 one-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers purpose, invocation, and the fields of interest, which is nearly enough. The only gap is the not-found / error behavior, which is a minor omission for this tool class.

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 coverage is 100% with a single required parameter already documented as 'Content ID (UUID) or slug'. The description's 'by id or slug' merely repeats the schema, adding no format or resolution-order detail. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (a single master content item) plus the lookup key (id or slug). The word 'master' and 'single' distinguish it from list_contents and from variant-level getters in the sibling set.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly names the condition and the alternatives: 'Use before update_content or create_variant to read the current body/hook/cta.' An agent knows both when to reach for it and which sibling calls it feeds into.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools