mailchimp_get_campaignGet a single campaign by id, including its settings, recipients and send status. REST: GET /campaigns/{campaign_id}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| campaign_id | Yes | The campaign id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the scope of the response (settings, recipients, send status) and the REST endpoint, providing context beyond the annotation. It does not detail rate limits or auth, but those are less critical for a read-only get operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every word earns its place. No redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
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 one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it states what is retrieved (the campaign with settings, recipients, send status) and the HTTP method/path. Sibling tools are not needed for disambiguation here because the purpose is crystal clear.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%: the lone parameter 'campaign_id' is described as 'The campaign id.' The description adds minimal extra meaning by saying 'by id' and including the REST path template, but the schema already does the heavy lifting. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb+resource: 'Get a single campaign by id'. It specifies what is included (settings, recipients, send status) and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'mailchimp_list_campaigns' (which lists) and 'mailchimp_get_campaign_report' (which gets a report).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The purpose implies when to use: when you need a specific campaign by its id. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is clear enough given that sibling tools cover listing and reports. Lacks explicit exclusions, 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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource-action pair, with clear distinctions between get/list/search for members and between add/update/archive for member changes. There is no meaningful overlap that would confuse an agent.
All tools follow the consistent mailchimp_verb_noun pattern in snake_case, making the action and resource predictable from the name. Deviation is minimal and stylistic.
With 18 tools, the count is slightly above the typical 3-15 range, but each tool covers a distinct Mailchimp resource (audiences, members, campaigns, reports, templates, automations, segments), so the breadth is justified.
The surface is heavily read-focused; write operations exist only for members (add, update, archive). Core workflows like creating or updating audiences, campaigns, templates, and segments are missing, which would hinder agents from performing typical Mailchimp tasks.