A
licenseA
qualityB
maintenanceA Model Context Protocol server that enables AI assistants to interact with Strapi CMS instances through a standardized interface, supporting content types and REST API operations.
5
235 npm
75
MIT
Contentful MCP Server
コンテンツフル MCP サーバー
Claude が Contentful CMS データと直接やり取りできるようにする Model Context Protocol (MCP) サーバー。この統合により、Claude は Contentful スペースからコンテンツタイプとエントリを取得できるようになります。
特徴
Contentful スペースからすべてのコンテンツ タイプを取得します
特定のコンテンツタイプのエントリを取得する
AIアシスタントが簡単に利用できるように構造化された応答
Related MCP server: microCMS MCP Server
前提条件
Node.js (v16 以上)
APIキーを持つContentfulアカウント
Claude デスクトップ (Claude で MCP サーバーを使用するため)
インストール
このリポジトリをクローンします:
git clone https://github.com/yourusername/contentful-mcp-server.git cd contentful-mcp-server
2.依存関係をインストール: npm install
ルート ディレクトリに、Contentful の認証情報を使用して .env ファイルを作成します。4. CONTENTFUL_SPACE_ID=your_space_id CONTENTFUL_ACCESS_TOKEN=your_access_token CONTENTFUL_ENVIRONMENT=develop CONTENTFUL_PREVIEW_ACCESS_TOKEN=your_preview_token
npm 実行ビルド
または、package.json でビルド スクリプトを構成します: "scripts": { "build": "tsc", "start": "node dist/index.js" }
##Claude デスクトップの設定
{
"mcpServers": {
"contentful": {
"command": "node",
"args": [
"/absolute/path/to/contentful-mcp-server/dist/index.js"
]
}
}
}Available Tools
2 toolsget-content-typesC
get content types
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
TDQS
C2.4/5.0
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.
get-entriesC
Get entries for a specific content type
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| contentType | Yes |
TDQS
C2.6/5.0
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.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
2 tool updates
- First observed
get-content-types - First observed
get-entries
TDQS
C2.8/5.0
Scored across 2 tools
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.
Maintenance
ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues
Related MCP Connectors
A Model Context Protocol server for Wix AI tools
A comprehensive Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that enables AI assistants to interact with yo…
Enable secure connectivity between Sentry issues and debugging data, and LLM clients, using a Model Context Protocol (MCP) server.
Model Context Protocol server for the Apideck Unified API. Connect any MCP-compatible agent framework to 100+ accounting systems, HRIS platforms, file storage providers, and more through one integration. More information https://www.apideck.com/mcp-server
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseCqualityAmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol server that enables AI assistants like Claude to interact with microCMS content management system through six core tools for performing CRUD operations on microCMS list-type APIs.22607 npm22MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol server that enables AI assistants like Claude to manage changelogs, projects, and content through natural language interactions with Changerawr instances.2MIT
- AlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol server that enables seamless integration between Claude AI and development tools like VSCode, Augment, Vercel, Airtable, and Square.7MIT