Skip to main content
Glama
thenavidm

Buffer MCP Server

by thenavidm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Fetch a single content item by id

get_content_item
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve one content item by its unique ID to read details and fields; returns an error when no matching item exists. Single request with no auto pagination.

Instructions

Fetch a single content item by id. Errors if no content item with that id exists.

This API is an early preview and can change without a deprecation period.. Current Buffer GraphQL contentItem. One request, no automatic pagination. Use upstream fields to bound data; provider errors are failures even with HTTP 200.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoThe unique identifier of the content item to fetch.
fieldsNoUpstream field paths relative to the result, as in official CLI --fields. Default fields are bounded. Use items.id for connection nodes; pageInfo.endCursor for cursors.
accountNoPrivate account profile name. Selects credentials only; an organization default does not restrict provider token permissions.
payloadNoComplete native input object instead of individual input fields.
payload_fileNoRegular local JSON input file, no symlink, at most 1 MiB; cannot mix with payload or individual input fields.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld safety, and the description adds genuinely new traits: it errors on missing ids, is in early preview with no deprecation period, performs one request with no automatic pagination, and treats provider errors as failures even on HTTP 200. These are real operational caveats beyond the structured hints, though return shape is not discussed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Dense and mostly front-loaded, with the primary action first and caveats after. Minor waste and a typographic slip ('period..') plus the fragment 'Current Buffer GraphQL contentItem' slightly blunt the polish, but each sentence carries information.

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 read tool with no output schema and 5 params including a nested payload object, the description covers error behavior, pagination limits, field bounding, and API stability. Only the response shape is unaddressed, which is acceptable given no output schema.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are fully documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description adds only a light note about using upstream fields to bound data, offering marginal meaning beyond what the field schema already provides.

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 ('Fetch a single content item by id') and scopes it to a single item, which cleanly separates it from the plural sibling get_content_items. An agent can identify the operation and the target without opening the schema.

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?

Gives some conditional behavior ('Errors if no content item with that id exists') and a hint to bound data with upstream fields, but never says when to pick this over get_content_items or any other sibling. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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