Skip to main content
Glama

Mailrith Email Marketing

Get a segment

segments_get
Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns one saved segment from the authenticated workspace. Permission: segments:read. API reference: https://mailrith.com/developers/api-reference.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
segment_idYesThe identifier of the segment to return.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
errorNo
responseNo
request_idYesThe stable correlation ID for this MCP tool invocation.
operation_idYesThe stable Mailrith public API operation ID.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds context by specifying the required permission, which is a behavioral requirement not covered by annotations.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and additional information (permission, reference) is in the second.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple get-by-ID tool with a complete output schema and full schema description coverage, the description is sufficient. It includes permission requirements and an API link, leaving no gaps.

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?

The input schema fully describes the single parameter (segment_id) with a clear description. The description does not add additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Returns' and resource 'saved segment' with clear scope 'from the authenticated workspace'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'segments_list' and 'segments_preview'.

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?

The description includes the required permission 'segments:read' and provides an API reference link. While it doesn't explicitly say when not to use this tool, the context is clear for retrieving a single segment by ID.

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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool is prefixed by its resource and targets a unique action, so there is no real overlap between tools. Even similar operations like preflight, preview_journey, and send_test are clearly separated by resource and described with distinct effects.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent `resource_action` snake_case pattern, e.g., broadcasts_create, subscribers_upsert, sequences_update_status. Custom verbs like cancel, unschedule, and preview_journey still fit the same predictable convention.

Tool Count1/5

55 tools is an extreme count for a single MCP server, making it difficult for an agent to efficiently discover and choose among the surface. While each tool appears justified, the size suggests the API should be split into focused servers by resource domain.

Completeness3/5

The broadcast, automation, sequence, and subscriber workflows are well covered with lifecycle operations. However, custom fields and segments only have read/list/preview operations with no create, update, or delete, and several resources lack delete endpoints, leaving notable gaps for full lifecycle management.