EmailOctopus MCP Server and API by Cotlet

List campaigns in EmailOctopus

emailoctopus_list_campaigns

Read-onlyIdempotent

List campaigns in the user's own EmailOctopus account from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent. Returns how to do it in EmailOctopus step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself; then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's EmailOctopus Cloud Browser. EmailOctopus's official API: EmailOctopus has a public REST API (v2) for lists, contacts, fields, tags, campaign reports and starting an automation for a contact, but no official MCP server and no API for creating, scheduling or sending a campaign (checked 20 Oct 2026).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "emailoctopus_list_campaigns"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false; the description reinforces this with 'opens nothing by itself', which is the key behavioral fact an agent needs to avoid assuming side effects. It adds context annotations cannot carry: the reason the browser path is required and a verification date for the API gap claim. Missing only what the returned guidance text looks like in practice.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Core behavior is front-loaded in the first two sentences, which is good. But 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' is filler that does not help tool selection, and the API-audit sentence is long and packed with detail (lists, contacts, fields, tags, reports, automations) that dilutes the main point. It also embeds an odd future date ('checked 20 Oct 2026'), which reads as stale or erroneous metadata.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does: step-by-step screens, buttons and fields, with no automatic side effects. It also sets expectations about the follow-up tool family. It could be slightly clearer about whether the guide is specific to 'list campaigns' or generic, but it is sufficient to call the tool correctly.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not invent or discuss inputs.

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 has a specific verb and resource ('List campaigns in the user's own EmailOctopus account') and clarifies the actual deliverable: a step-by-step how-to, not a data dump. This distinguishes it from the mutating emailoctopus_* siblings and from the raw cotlet_browser_* tools. It is slightly undercut by the name/title 'List campaigns', which suggests a direct API listing rather than a guide.

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 explicitly states the workflow boundary: this tool opens nothing by itself, then you act with cotlet_browser_* in the user's EmailOctopus Cloud Browser. It also explains why the browser is needed (no official MCP server, no API for creating, scheduling or sending campaigns), which implicitly rules out the API-based siblings for those actions. No explicit exclusions for when NOT to use it, so not a 5.

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

All EmailOctopus MCP Server and API by Cotlet 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?