Tulina

lemlist_unsubscribe

Manage who must not be contacted. THREE lists, not one.

They do not hold the same objects, and writing to one does not write to the others:

v1 list/get/add/delete/export — emails and whole DOMAINS.
v2 var_* — any identifying value (email, domain, LinkedIn URL, phone), with var_bulk for up to 10 000 at once.
v2 contact_* — the do-not-contact flag on a CRM contact, which rides the CONTACT rather than one of its values.

To check ONE value, use get (v1) or var_get (v2): a listing can hold thousands of rows. list and var_list are paged: 100 rows when limit is omitted (lemlist caps var_list at 100 anyway), and next_offset says where the next page starts (null on the last one).

Args: email (v1), value / values (variables), contact_id (contacts), limit/offset on the two listings. The *_export ops return CSV text.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "op": "<op>"
    },
    "name": "lemlist_unsubscribe"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`op`	Yes
`_org`	No	Org (id) de CET APPEL. `oto_list_orgs()`.
`email`	No
`limit`	No
`value`	No
`_group`	No	Équipe (id) de CET APPEL, sous son org parente.
`offset`	No
`values`	No
`_run_id`	No	OBLIGATOIRE à chaque appel dès `run_start` ou `data_claim_next` : sans lui, l'écriture sur une ligne réservée est refusée. Hérité seulement si le serveur tient un run actif — n'y compte pas.
`_project`	No	Projet (id) de CET APPEL — jeton PRIMAIRE. `oto_project(op='list')`.
`_instance`	No	Instance de connecteur PRÉCISE (un credential exact). `oto_instance(op='list')`.
`contact_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

No schema history has been recorded yet.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real operational traits: default page size of 100 rows, `next_offset` semantics (null on the last page), lemlist's hard cap of 100 on `var_list`, a 10 000 ceiling on `var_bulk`, and that `*_export` returns CSV text. It does not cover permissions, whether removals are reversible, or what non-export ops return.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first line, then a clean bulleted breakdown of the three list families, then paging and args. Every sentence carries information, though the heavy line-wrapping fragments the bullets and the 'THREE lists, not one' emphasis is slightly theatrical for an API description.

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 15-op, 12-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the family split, the check-one-value recommendation, paging behavior, and export return format — enough to call it correctly. What is missing is what the non-export ops return and any per-op required-argument rules beyond `op`.

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?

At 42% schema coverage and a single required `op`, the schema never says which parameter belongs to which op; the description supplies that mapping (`email` for v1, `value`/`values` for variables, `contact_id` for contacts, `limit`/`offset` only on the two listings). It leaves the framework parameters (`_org`, `_group`, `_project`, `_run_id`) to their schema text, which is reasonable since those are documented there.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description names the concrete resource (lemlist do-not-contact lists) and explicitly enumerates the three distinct families with their ops (v1 `list`/`get`/`add`, v2 `var_*`, v2 `contact_*`), which an agent cannot infer from the flat 15-value `op` enum. It stops short of naming sibling tools such as `lemlist_contact` and saying how this differs from them, so it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives one explicit routing rule — 'To check ONE value, use `get` (v1) or `var_get` (v2)' because a listing can hold thousands of rows — and explains what each list holds, which implicitly selects the right family. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer v1 over v2 for the same value, or when the `contact_*` flag should be used instead of a `var_*` entry.

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

All Tulina tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?