Skip to main content
Glama
microcmsio

microCMS Document MCP Server

Official
by microcmsio
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.2.5

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool serves a distinct purpose: fetch_general provides an overview, list_documents enumerates available files, and search_document retrieves specific file content. No overlap.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tools use the verb_noun naming pattern with underscores (fetch_general, list_documents, search_document), providing clear and predictable naming.

    Tool Count5/5

    Three tools are appropriate for a documentation server: one for overview, one for listing, one for retrieval. The count is well-scoped for the stated purpose.

    Completeness4/5

    The toolset covers basic read operations but lacks full-text search across all documents. However, the workflow (general → list → search) enables comprehensive Q&A, so only a minor gap exists.

  • Average 4.2/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 10 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • Last stable release on
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation by saying 'search and return content', but does not disclose potential behaviors such as error handling when file is not found, permissions required, or whether the operation is safe. More detail is needed for a tool with no annotations.

    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?

    The description is concise with two sentences plus an instruction. It front-loads the purpose and usage hint. Minor waste: the instruction about fetch_general could be more integrated, but overall efficient.

    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?

    Given no output schema and two parameters, the description covers usage and basic behavior but lacks details on return format or error conditions. It is adequate for a simple tool but could be more complete by describing what 'returns content' means.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters4/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are documented. The description adds that specifying a category targets a specific subdirectory, which provides context beyond the enum values in the schema. This enhances understanding of how the 'category' parameter works.

    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?

    The description clearly states it is used for answering questions about microCMS by searching documents and returning file contents. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools 'fetch_general' (which fetches general info) and 'list_documents' (which lists documents) by specifying it searches and returns content of a given file.

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

    Usage Guidelines4/5

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

    The description explicitly advises to run 'fetch_general' first if not already done, providing a clear prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools beyond the prerequisite.

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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    The description states the tool returns file contents, implying a read-only operation, but with no annotations provided, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. The minimal disclosure is acceptable but lacks depth.

    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 description is two sentences, front-loaded with usage guidance, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence is useful.

    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?

    Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential facts: what it does and when to use. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly, though it could mention if the file is static or dynamic.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters4/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    The tool has no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter meaning since none exist. Schema coverage is 100% trivially.

    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?

    The description explicitly states that the tool returns the contents of docs/general.md, which contains overview and common information about microCMS. It uses a specific verb ('returns contents') and identifies the resource. The purpose is clear and distinct from sibling tools like list_documents and search_document.

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

    Usage Guidelines4/5

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

    The description says 'when answering questions about microCMS, first use this tool,' providing clear context for use. However, it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternatives, leaving some guidance gaps.

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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    No annotations provided, but description discloses the tool returns file names and optionally filters by category. Does not mention edge cases like invalid categories or permission requirements, but is adequate for a read-only listing 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?

    The description is two sentences plus a usage note, each sentence serving a distinct purpose. No redundant or unnecessary information.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness5/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given the simple tool (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers purpose, usage, and prerequisites. References sibling tools for completeness.

    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 clear enum description. Description only rephrases the parameter, adding no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score 3 is appropriate.

    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?

    The description clearly states the tool returns a list of document file names for answering questions about microCMS, and can filter by category. This distinguishes it from siblings fetch_general and search_document.

    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 instructs to run fetch_general first if not already done, and states when to use the tool (for answering microCMS questions). Provides clear guidance on prerequisites and context.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

microcms-document-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

microcms-document-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/microcmsio/microcms-document-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server