Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MODX MCP

MODX MCP

by rumata-estor
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

modx_get_element

Reads a MODX element by type and ID or name, returning its fields and full code so you can inspect or edit the element.

Instructions

Read a MODX element (returns its fields + full code). For a large chunk/snippet/template/plugin you only need to edit, prefer modx_view_element (numbered, windowable) so you don't pull the whole body into context.

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": {
      "type": "<type>"
    },
    "name": "modx_get_element"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNo
nameNo
typeYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.2.4

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description still discloses the key behavioral trait: this returns the entire element body, which is expensive in context, and it recommends a windowed alternative for large elements. It does not say whether id or name is required, nor what happens if neither resolves.

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 return payload is stated first and the routing advice follows, so the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

No annotations and no output schema, so the description carries the full burden for a three-parameter tool. It covers the return shape and context cost well, but leaves the id/name lookup ambiguity of the schema entirely unaddressed.

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 description coverage is 0% across three parameters, so the description must compensate and it largely does not. It implies the 'type' values through the enumeration of element kinds, but never explains when to pass id versus name, or that only type is required.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read a MODX element') plus what comes back ('its fields + full code'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling modx_view_element, so an agent can pick between the two without opening either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives an explicit alternative and the exact condition that selects it: for a large chunk/snippet/template/plugin you only intend to edit, use modx_view_element instead. Both the when and the when-not are present.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools