gpsem

Lire une idée de contenu

getContentIdea

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a content idea's status and the generated page from a specified site and ID to track content production progress.

Instructions

Lire une idée de contenu — Statut et page produite. — (GET /sites/{siteId}/contenus/{id})

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": {
      "siteId": "<siteId>",
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "getContentIdea"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`siteId`	Yes	ID site encodé (hashid)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 26, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the tool returns status and produced page, which is useful behavioral context. It also specifies the HTTP GET method and path, aiding understanding. No contradiction with annotations.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes the HTTP endpoint. Every word adds value; there is no fluff.

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?

For a simple read operation with only two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the primary output (status and produced page). It does not detail error conditions or the exact response structure, but given the low complexity and that annotations cover safety, it is largely complete.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 50% (only siteId has a description; id has none). The description does not explain the parameters beyond the schema—it only mentions the output. The id parameter is left undocumented in both schema and description, and the description does not compensate for this gap.

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 action (read/lire) and the resource (content idea), and it specifies what is returned (status and produced page). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like listContentIdeas (list) and createContent/writeContentIdea (write).

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage when you have a specific content idea ID and want to read its status and produced page. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like listContentIdeas for browsing. There is no exclusionary guidance.

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

Deploy Server