Skip to main content
Glama
tejedamiguel6

Contentful MCP Server

by tejedamiguel6
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: get-content-types retrieves metadata about content types, while get-entries fetches actual content entries for a specific type. There is no overlap or ambiguity between these operations.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun naming pattern with hyphens (get-content-types and get-entries). The naming is predictable and uniform across the set.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels severely under-scoped for a Contentful MCP server, which typically involves content management operations like creating, updating, or deleting entries and content types. This minimal set limits functionality.

    Completeness2/5

    The toolset is significantly incomplete for a content management domain. It only provides read operations (get-content-types and get-entries), missing essential CRUD operations such as create, update, or delete for entries and content types, which are core to content management workflows.

  • Average 2.5/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. 'Get content types' implies a read operation, but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the results will be in, whether there are rate limits, or any other behavioral characteristics. The description provides only the most basic functional information.

    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 extremely concise at just three words, but this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified. While there's no wasted language, the description fails to provide sufficient context about what the tool does beyond the most basic level. It's appropriately sized for what it contains, but what it contains is inadequate.

    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 that there are no annotations, no output schema, and a sibling tool exists, the description is incomplete. For a tool that presumably returns content types, the description doesn't explain what format the results will be in, how they're structured, or how this differs from the 'get-entries' sibling tool. The minimal description leaves too many contextual questions unanswered.

    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?

    The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline score is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters since none exist, and the schema fully documents this. No additional parameter information is required or expected in the description for this parameterless tool.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose2/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description 'get content types' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It specifies the verb 'get' and resource 'content types', but lacks any distinction from sibling tools or clarification about what 'content types' refers to in this context. This minimal description provides only basic purpose information.

    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?

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With a sibling tool 'get-entries' available, there's no indication of how these tools differ or when one should be preferred over the other. The description offers no context about appropriate use cases or prerequisites for this operation.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get entries', implying a read operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as permissions needed, rate limits, pagination, or what the return format looks like. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

    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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, stating the core purpose directly. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

    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 the complexity of a tool with 1 parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'entries' are, how they are returned, or any behavioral aspects. This is inadequate for a tool that likely returns data, as users need more context to use it effectively.

    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?

    The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description adds minimal meaning. It mentions 'content type' as the parameter but doesn't explain what content types are available, their format, or examples. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving the parameter poorly documented.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose3/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description states the tool's purpose as 'Get entries for a specific content type', which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'entries', but lacks detail on what 'entries' are or how they relate to 'content type'. It distinguishes from sibling 'get-content-types' by focusing on entries rather than types, but the distinction is minimal.

    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 implies usage when entries for a content type are needed, but it doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or context. With a sibling tool 'get-content-types', there's no mention of whether to use one before the other or in what scenarios.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

MCP-server-Contenful MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

MCP-server-Contenful MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/tejedamiguel6/MCP-server-Contenful'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server