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 Document MCP Server How do I publish draft content via API in microCMS?"
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 ドキュメントにアクセスするための Model Context Protocol (MCP) サーバーです。
この MCP サーバーは、microCMSの提供するドキュメントへのアクセスを提供します。
AI アシスタントが最新のドキュメント内容を検索・取得できるようにします。
Related MCP server: colyseus-docs-mcp
Cursorに導入する場合、以下のリンクをブラウザに貼り付けてインストールできます。
cursor://anysphere.cursor-deeplink/mcp/install?name=microcms-document&config=eyJjb21tYW5kIjoibnB4IC15IG1pY3JvY21zLWRvY3VtZW50LW1jcC1zZXJ2ZXIifQ%3D%3DClaude Codeに導入する場合、以下のコマンドを実行で設定を追加できます。
claude mcp add microcms-document -- npx -y microcms-document-mcp-serverClaude Desktopに導入する場合、MCPBファイルを使って簡単にインストールできます。
リリースページ から最新の microcms-document-mcp-server.mcpb をダウンロード
ダウンロードしたmcpbファイルをダブルクリックで開く
その他のMCPクライアントに導入する場合、設定ファイルに以下を追加してください。
{
"mcpServers": {
"microcms-document": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "microcms-document-mcp-server"]
}
}
}セットアップ後、microCMSについての質問をするとAIが必要に応じてドキュメントを読み、回答します。
チャットの文章に use microcms-docs-mcp と書くと明示的にMCPの利用を依頼することもできます。
microCMSの仕様について質問する
microCMSで、下書きで登録済みのコンテンツをAPI経由で公開したい。
どのようなリクエストを送ればいい？microCMSのドキュメントを読みながら実装してもらう
microCMSで、特定の日付以降に更新されたコンテンツの一覧を取得するスクリプトを作ります。
- 環境変数でサービスIDとAPIキーを指定
- コマンドライン引数でAPIエンドポイントと基準となる日付を指定
- 結果は整形して表示
言語はJavaScriptでお願いします。
use microcms-docs-mcpmicroCMSの一般的な情報を返します。
docs ディレクトリ内の利用可能なドキュメントファイル名の配列を返します。
指定されたドキュメントファイルの内容を取得します。
このプロジェクトは MIT ライセンスの下で公開されています。
microCMSについての質問に答える場合、まずこのツールを利用します。docs/general.md の内容を返します。これにはmicroCMS全体の概要や共通情報が書かれています。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states the tool returns file contents, implying a read-only operation, but with no annotations provided, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. The minimal disclosure is acceptable but lacks depth.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with usage guidance, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence is useful.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential facts: what it does and when to use. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly, though it could mention if the file is static or dynamic.
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?
The tool has no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter meaning since none exist. Schema coverage is 100% trivially.
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?
The description explicitly states that the tool returns the contents of docs/general.md, which contains overview and common information about microCMS. It uses a specific verb ('returns contents') and identifies the resource. The purpose is clear and distinct from sibling tools like list_documents and search_document.
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?
The description says 'when answering questions about microCMS, first use this tool,' providing clear context for use. However, it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternatives, leaving some guidance gaps.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
microCMSについての質問に答える場合に利用します。ドキュメントディレクトリのファイル名一覧を返します。カテゴリーを指定することで特定のサブディレクトリのみを対象にできます。
まだ fetch_general で全体情報を取得していない場合は、最初に fetch_general を実行してください。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No | 検索するカテゴリー（マニュアル: manual, content-api, management-api, image-api, mcp-server）。指定しない場合は全カテゴリーを対象とします。 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but description discloses the tool returns file names and optionally filters by category. Does not mention edge cases like invalid categories or permission requirements, but is adequate for a read-only listing tool.
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?
The description is two sentences plus a usage note, each sentence serving a distinct purpose. No redundant or unnecessary information.
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?
Given the simple tool (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers purpose, usage, and prerequisites. References sibling tools for completeness.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with a clear enum description. Description only rephrases the parameter, adding no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description clearly states the tool returns a list of document file names for answering questions about microCMS, and can filter by category. This distinguishes it from siblings fetch_general and search_document.
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?
Explicitly instructs to run fetch_general first if not already done, and states when to use the tool (for answering microCMS questions). Provides clear guidance on prerequisites and context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
microCMSについての質問に答える場合に利用します。ドキュメントから指定されたファイルを検索し、中身を返します。カテゴリーを指定することで特定のサブディレクトリのみを対象にできます。
まだ fetch_general で全体情報を取得していない場合は、最初に fetch_general を実行してください。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filename | Yes | 検索するファイル名（拡張子を含む） | |
| category | No | 検索するカテゴリー（manual, content-api, management-api, image-api, mcp-server）。指定しない場合は全カテゴリーから検索します。 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation by saying 'search and return content', but does not disclose potential behaviors such as error handling when file is not found, permissions required, or whether the operation is safe. More detail is needed for a tool with no annotations.
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?
The description is concise with two sentences plus an instruction. It front-loads the purpose and usage hint. Minor waste: the instruction about fetch_general could be more integrated, but overall efficient.
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?
Given no output schema and two parameters, the description covers usage and basic behavior but lacks details on return format or error conditions. It is adequate for a simple tool but could be more complete by describing what 'returns content' means.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are documented. The description adds that specifying a category targets a specific subdirectory, which provides context beyond the enum values in the schema. This enhances understanding of how the 'category' parameter works.
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?
The description clearly states it is used for answering questions about microCMS by searching documents and returning file contents. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools 'fetch_general' (which fetches general info) and 'list_documents' (which lists documents) by specifying it searches and returns content of a given file.
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?
The description explicitly advises to run 'fetch_general' first if not already done, providing a clear prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools beyond the prerequisite.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v0.2.5fetch_generallist_documentssearch_documentEach tool serves a distinct purpose: fetch_general provides an overview, list_documents enumerates available files, and search_document retrieves specific file content. No overlap.
All tools use the verb_noun naming pattern with underscores (fetch_general, list_documents, search_document), providing clear and predictable naming.
Three tools are appropriate for a documentation server: one for overview, one for listing, one for retrieval. The count is well-scoped for the stated purpose.
The toolset covers basic read operations but lacks full-text search across all documents. However, the workflow (general → list → search) enables comprehensive Q&A, so only a minor gap exists.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Retrieve information from the Medusa documentation to assist you with your Medusa development.
Search the SiteGPT documentation: setup, features, API reference, troubleshooting.
Search the Cerebrium docs: deployment, cerebrium.toml, hardware, endpoints. Also sends feedback.
Search SORACOM documentation: service guides, FAQ, API references, IoT recipes, etc.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/microcmsio/microcms-document-mcp-server'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
