microCMS MCP Server
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type
@followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@microCMS MCP ServerGet the latest 10 blog article titles from the blog endpoint"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
microCMS MCP サーバ
このプロジェクトは、Model Context Protocol (MCP) を使用して microCMS の API にアクセスするサーバを実装したものです。
概要
microCMS MCP サーバは以下の機能を提供します:
コンテンツ一覧取得:指定したエンドポイントからコンテンツ一覧を取得
特定コンテンツ取得:ID を指定して特定のコンテンツを取得
コンテンツ検索:キーワード検索によるコンテンツの取得
フィルター検索:複雑な条件でのコンテンツのフィルタリング
Related MCP server: contentstack-mcp
インストール
# リポジトリのクローン
git clone https://github.com/burnworks/microcms-api-mcp-server
cd microcms-api-mcp-server
# 依存関係のインストール
npm install使用方法
必要なファイルのビルド
# TypeScriptをコンパイル
npm run builddist/ ディレクトリ内に必要なファイルが生成されます。
MCP クライアントからの使用
このサーバは MCP プロトコルに準拠しており、任意の MCP クライアントから接続して使用できます。
Claude デスクトップアプリでの利用
claude_desktop_config.json に下記のように設定してください。
{
"mcpServers": {
"microcms": {
"command": "node",
"args": [
"/[__path__]/microcms-api-mcp-server/dist/index.js"
],
"env": {
"MICROCMS_API_KEY": "__your_api_key_here__",
"MICROCMS_BASE_URL": "https://your-service.microcms.io"
}
}
}
}Windows 環境であれば下記のような設定になるかもしれません。
{
"mcpServers": {
"microcms": {
"command": "C:/Program Files/nodejs/node.exe",
"args": [
"C:/[__path__]/microcms-api-mcp-server/dist/index.js"
],
"env": {
"MICROCMS_API_KEY": "__your_api_key_here__",
"MICROCMS_BASE_URL": "https://your-service.microcms.io"
}
}
}
}利用可能なツール
例えば下記のようなプロンプトで microCMS API にアクセスできます。
blog エンドポイントから、最新の記事10件分のタイトルを取得してget_contents
コンテンツ一覧を取得します。
パラメータ:
endpoint: 取得したい microCMS の API エンドポイント(例: 'blog')limit: 取得する件数(オプション、デフォルト: 10、最大: 100)offset: 取得開始位置のオフセット(オプション)orders: 並び替え(オプション、例: 'publishedAt' または '-publishedAt')q: 全文検索クエリ(オプション)filters: フィルタ条件(オプション、例: 'title[contains]テスト')fields: 取得フィールド(オプション、例: 'id,title,publishedAt')depth: 参照の深さ(オプション、1-3)
get_content
特定のコンテンツを取得します。
パラメータ:
endpoint: 取得したい microCMS の API エンドポイント(例: 'blog')contentId: 取得したいコンテンツの IDfields: 取得フィールド(オプション、例: 'id,title,publishedAt')depth: 参照の深さ(オプション、1-3)draftKey: 下書きコンテンツを取得するためのキー(オプション)
search_contents
キーワード検索でコンテンツを取得します。
パラメータ:
endpoint: 検索対象の microCMS の API エンドポイント(例: 'blog')q: 検索キーワードlimit: 取得する件数(オプション、デフォルト: 10、最大: 100)offset: 取得開始位置のオフセット(オプション)fields: 取得フィールド(オプション、例: 'id,title,publishedAt')depth: 参照の深さ(オプション、1-3)
filter_contents
複雑な条件でコンテンツをフィルタリングします。
パラメータ:
endpoint: 検索対象の microCMS の API エンドポイント(例: 'blog')filters: フィルター条件(例: 'category[equals]news[and]createdAt[greater_than]2023-01-01')limit: 取得する件数(オプション、デフォルト: 10、最大: 100)offset: 取得開始位置のオフセット(オプション)fields: 取得フィールド(オプション、例: 'id,title,publishedAt')depth: 参照の深さ(オプション、1-3)
利用可能なリソース
microcms://{endpoint}/{contentId}
特定の ID のコンテンツを取得するためのリソース URI テンプレート。
microcms://{endpoint}
コンテンツ一覧を取得するためのリソース URI テンプレート。
ライセンス
MIT
Available Tools
4 toolsfilter_contentsD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| endpoint | Yes | 検索対象のmicroCMSのAPIエンドポイント (例: 'blog') | |
| filters | Yes | フィルター条件 (例: 'category[equals]news[and]createdAt[greater_than]2023-01-01') | |
| limit | No | 取得する件数 (デフォルト: 10, 最大: 100) | |
| offset | No | 取得開始位置のオフセット | |
| fields | No | 取得フィールド (例: 'id,title,publishedAt') | |
| depth | No | 参照の深さ (1-3) |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_contentD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| endpoint | Yes | 取得したいmicroCMSのAPIエンドポイント (例: 'blog') | |
| contentId | Yes | 取得したいコンテンツのID | |
| fields | No | 取得フィールド (例: 'id,title,publishedAt') | |
| depth | No | 参照の深さ (1-3) | |
| draftKey | No | 下書きコンテンツを取得するためのキー |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_contentsD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| endpoint | Yes | 取得したいmicroCMSのAPIエンドポイント (例: 'blog') | |
| limit | No | 取得する件数 (デフォルト: 10, 最大: 100) | |
| offset | No | 取得開始位置のオフセット | |
| orders | No | 並び替え (例: 'publishedAt' or '-publishedAt') | |
| q | No | 全文検索クエリ | |
| filters | No | フィルタ条件 (例: 'title[contains]テスト') | |
| fields | No | 取得フィールド (例: 'id,title,publishedAt') | |
| depth | No | 参照の深さ (1-3) |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_contentsD
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| endpoint | Yes | 検索対象のmicroCMSのAPIエンドポイント (例: 'blog') | |
| q | Yes | 検索キーワード | |
| limit | No | 取得する件数 (デフォルト: 10, 最大: 100) | |
| offset | No | 取得開始位置のオフセット | |
| fields | No | 取得フィールド (例: 'id,title,publishedAt') | |
| depth | No | 参照の深さ (1-3) |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
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. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
4 tool updates
v1.0.0- First observed
filter_contents - First observed
get_content - First observed
get_contents - First observed
search_contents
TDQS
Tool names suggest different operations (filter, get single, get all, search), but without descriptions, potential overlap between 'search_contents' and 'filter_contents' or 'get_contents' introduces ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (filter_contents, get_content, get_contents, search_contents) with no mixing of conventions.
Only 4 tools for a CMS server is far too few; typical CMS operations (create, update, delete, content type management) are missing, making the scope too narrow.
The tool set covers only read operations (get, filter, search), lacking essential CRUD operations (create, update, delete) and content lifecycle management.
Maintenance
Resources
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
Looking for Admin?
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Related MCP Connectors
Manage structured website content in Garchi CMS through MCP.
Public read-only MCP for products, frameworks, guides, methodology, and blog metadata.
An MCP server that provides access to Agility CMS. See https://mcp.agilitycms.com for more details.
Manage SRG+ hubs, channels, content, assets, users, and workspaces from any MCP-aware AI agent.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceProvides access to Strapi CMS content through the MCP protocol, allowing users to create, read, update, and delete content entries via Claude.71625MIT
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceAn MCP server for interacting with Contentstack's Content Management API15162TypeScriptMIT

Storyblok MCP Serverofficial
AlicenseNot gradedqualityFmaintenanceProvides access to the Storyblok Management API via MCP, enabling content management and operations on Storyblok spaces through natural language. Note: This repository is archived; use the hosted version at mcp.labs.storyblok.com.978MIT- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceProvides access to microCMS documentation, enabling AI assistants to search and retrieve the latest document content.31668MIT
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
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/burnworks/microcms-api-mcp-server'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server