list_webforms
Read-onlyIdempotent
List all webforms in your MailerCloud account.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number | |
| limit | No | Number of webforms to return | |
| api_key | No | MailerCloud API key |
Mailercloud
TDQS
B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral details about pagination, return structure, or how the api_key parameter is used, leaving potential execution behavior under-specified.
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, complete sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and includes the account scope inline. Perfectly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the description is minimally viable, but it lacks any mention of return format, pagination behavior, or authentication handling. With no output schema, these details are left entirely to the agent's assumptions, so some important context is missing.
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 descriptions already cover all three parameters (page, limit, api_key) at 100% coverage. The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and the resource ('all webforms in your MailerCloud account'), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_webhooks or get_webhook. The scope is explicit and unambiguous.
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. It does not mention scenarios where pagination is needed, nor does it contrast with related list/get tools. Usage context is entirely implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Tool purposes are largely distinct, with clear separation between CRUD operations, analytics, and deliverability tools. Some overlap exists between get_campaign, analyze_campaign, and campaign_health_dashboard, but descriptions clarify scope sufficiently.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (list_, get_, create_, update_, delete_, send_). Minor exceptions like campaign_health_dashboard and engagement_funnel are descriptive but break the pattern.
Tool Count2/5
With 47 tools, this is a very large surface area. While the variety reflects the breadth of email marketing operations, the count exceeds what is typically manageable and suggests potential redundancy or over-scoping.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers most core workflows: contact/list management, campaign lifecycle, templates, webhooks, analytics, and transactional email. Minor gaps like no delete for templates or tags are acceptable but not fatal.