Read a specific content item by ID from the CMS with audited, controlled access.
Read one content item.
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": "<id>"
},
"name": "get_content"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations to provide read-only or safety hints. The description 'Read' implies no mutation, but it does not mention how the content is returned, errors, or any special behavior at all. A descr without annotations bears the full disclosure burden, but only provides one cliché sentence.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Exactly one sentence and no filler. It says what it does in minimal words. But its minimalism is excessive and becomes thin.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No annotations and annotations absent. One input without output. No returns, no error conditions, no content type. The description misses entire behavioral and contextual layers.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the param is just 'id' with maxLength 40 and type string, which could be an identifier, but the description adds no meaning to what this id actually names or how to use it in content operations. Even a baseline of 0% coverage requires explicit parameter explanation in description, and the description does not provide any.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Read' and the resource 'one content item', which aligns with the id parameter. It distinguishes from siblings that create, update, or publish content, but it does not specify what kind of content item is being read.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use guidance or alternatives are given. The single sentence implies direct retrieval by identifier, but the context of usage versus search_content or create_content_field is not addressed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.