mailerlite_list_group_subscribersList the subscribers belonging to a group, optionally filtered by status. Cursor-paginated. MailerLite API: GET /groups/{group_id}/subscribers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max subscribers per page (default 25, max 100). | |
| cursor | No | Pagination cursor from a previous response's meta.next_cursor. | |
| status | No | Filter by status (→ filter[status]). | |
| group_id | Yes | Group id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by specifying cursor pagination behavior. It does not mention side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits, but the read-only nature is already annotated, so the additional pagination detail is valuable.
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 extremely concise with two sentences that front-load the core action. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no 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?
Given the lack of an output schema, the description does not explain the return format or structure of the subscribers. It mentions cursor pagination but omits details about the response envelope, making it adequate but not fully complete for an agent expecting output structure.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the input schema provides for parameters like status, limit, or cursor. No enrichment of parameter semantics is present.
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 the action 'List the subscribers belonging to a group' with the specific resource (subscribers filtered by group). It also mentions optional status filtering and cursor pagination, distinguishing it from sibling tools like mailerlite_list_subscribers which list all subscribers.
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 description implies usage for listing group subscribers but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like mailerlite_list_subscribers. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, relying on the name and sibling context.
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.