microCMS MCP Server

microcms_get_api_info

Retrieve the API schema for a specified content type endpoint from microCMS Management API, enabling exploration of field structure and relationships.

Instructions

Get API schema information from microCMS Management API. In relation and relationList field, you can get its schema using referencedApiEndpoint and microcms_get_api_info tool.

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": {
      "endpoint": "<endpoint>"
    },
    "name": "microcms_get_api_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`endpoint`	Yes	Content type name to get schema info (e.g., "blogs", "news")
`serviceId`	No	Service ID (required in multi-service mode, optional in single-service mode)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.9.0May 3, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / serviceId

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Service ID (required in multi-service mode, optional in single-service mode)",
+  "type": "string"
+}

Addedv1.0.0Jan 3, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The action 'Get' implies read-only, but it's not explicit.

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 sentences, zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds a specific use case. Information is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Lacks output schema, so description should explain what 'API schema information' includes. No mention of response format, error behavior, or pagination. Incomplete for a schema retrieval tool.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (serviceId and endpoint). The description adds a usage hint about relation fields but does not provide additional semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool gets API schema information from microCMS Management API, specifying a verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings like microcms_get_api_list by focusing on a specific endpoint's schema.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description hints at using the tool for relation fields schema retrieval, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like microcms_get_list or microcms_get_content. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites are mentioned.

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