mailerlite_list_webhooksList configured webhooks. Page-paginated. MailerLite API: GET /webhooks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (page-based pagination). | |
| limit | No | Max webhooks per page (default 25). |
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, signaling safety. The description adds 'Page-paginated' which is behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradictions or hidden destructive effects.
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?
Two short, direct sentences. No wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose.
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?
No output schema, but the tool is simple. The description could clarify the return format (list of webhooks) but is adequate for a list operation with good parameters.
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 schema already explains page and limit. The description adds 'page-paginated' but no deeper parameter meaning. 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?
Description clearly states 'List configured webhooks' — a specific verb+resource. It also mentions page pagination and the API endpoint, distinguishing it from sibling tools that deal with groups, subscribers, campaigns, etc.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. While it's straightforward, there is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it.
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 specific resource and action (e.g., subscriber, group, campaign) with no ambiguity. Even similar tools like list_subscribers and list_group_subscribers are clearly differentiated because one is global and the other is scoped to a group.
All tools follow the consistent pattern 'mailerlite_verb_noun' (e.g., list_subscribers, create_group, get_campaign). The prefix ensures uniqueness, and verbs like list, get, create, upsert, assign are used uniformly.
13 tools is reasonable for a MailerLite integration. It covers the core subscriber and group management well, while being lighter on other areas like campaigns and automations. The count is appropriate without being overwhelming.
The tool set covers subscriber and group management (CRUD for subscribers, create/list/assign groups) but is read-only for campaigns, automations, fields, segments, and webhooks. Missing operations like delete subscriber, delete/update group, and any write on campaigns indicate notable gaps.