Skip to main content
Glama

List Mailing Lists

list-mailing-lists
Read-onlyIdempotent

List all mailing lists for the authenticated user. Returns id, description, type, total_recipients, and created_at for each list.

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": "list-mailing-lists"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum number of lists to return. Defaults to 50.
searchNoOptional search string to filter mailing lists by description.
sub_account_idNoOptional sub-account ID to limit results to. Use list-sub-accounts to find available sub-accounts.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by enumerating return fields (there is no output schema), but it stays silent on pagination behavior, whether limit is the only paging control, and whether results are sorted.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; purpose comes first and the return payload second. Nothing is repeated or wasted.

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 simple read-only list tool with fully documented parameters and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the missing return-shape information. The only gap is pagination semantics and total-count behavior, which is minor for this tool's complexity.

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 description coverage is 100%, so limit, search, and sub_account_id are already fully documented including defaults and a cross-reference to list-sub-accounts. The description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema baseline.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (list mailing lists) scoped to the authenticated user, and states the returned fields. It is distinguishable from create-mailing-list by the verb, but it does not differentiate itself from other list-* siblings or explain how it relates to sub-accounts.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives; the sub_account_id parameter referenced only in the schema points to list-sub-accounts, but the description never mentions that relationship. Usage is merely implied by the name.

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.

Resources