microCMS MCP Server

microcms_get_content

Retrieve a specific content item from microCMS by providing content type and ID. Supports depth expansion, field selection, and draft preview.

Instructions

Get a specific content from microCMS

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>",
      "contentId": "<contentId>"
    },
    "name": "microcms_get_content"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`depth`	No	Depth of reference expansion (1-3)
`fields`	No	Comma-separated list of fields to retrieve
`draftKey`	No	Draft key for preview
`endpoint`	Yes	Content type name (e.g., "blogs", "news")
`contentId`	Yes	Content ID to retrieve
`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"
+}

First observedAug 15, 2025

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, authentication, or error handling. It only says 'get a specific content', which is insufficient for a tool with six parameters and no output schema.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is very short but under-specified. It could include important context (e.g., return format) in a few more words while remaining concise.

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?

Given no output schema and moderate parameter count, the description should explain return values, error cases, or mention the draft key usage. It fails to provide a complete picture.

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%, so the description does not need to add much. However, it adds nothing beyond the schema. The baseline score of 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 it gets a specific content, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like microcms_get_list which likely retrieves multiple contents. A brief contrast would improve clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as microcms_get_list or microcms_get_content_meta. The agent receives no context for selection.

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