microCMS MCP Server

microcms_get_member

Retrieve a member's details including ID, name, email, and MFA status from microCMS by providing the member ID.

Instructions

Get a specific member from microCMS Management API. Returns member information including ID, name, email, and MFA status.

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": {
      "memberId": "<memberId>"
    },
    "name": "microcms_get_member"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`memberId`	Yes	Member 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"
+}

Addedv1.0.0Jan 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states what the tool returns, but fails to mention authentication needs, rate limits, or any side effects. The tool is a read operation but does not confirm idempotency or safety.

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 a single sentence plus a bullet-like list of return fields. It is highly concise, front-loaded, and contains no redundant information.

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?

The description lists some return fields but does not fully specify the output structure (e.g., data types, nested objects). Since there is no output schema, more detail would be helpful. Still, it provides sufficient context for a simple retrieval tool.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by listing expected return fields (ID, name, email, MFA status), which are not in the schema. This helps the agent understand the output beyond parameter input.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'member', and lists specific return fields (ID, name, email, MFA status). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_content' or 'get_api_info' by targeting a member.

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. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare to other tools like 'get_services' or 'get_content'.

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