Skip to main content
Glama

get_member

Retrieve subscriber details by email address from a Mailchimp audience list to access member information and status.

Instructions

Get details for a specific subscriber by email address.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
list_idYes
emailYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Implementation Reference

  • The get_member tool implementation, which retrieves details for a subscriber by email address. It is registered via the @mcp.tool() decorator at line 487.
    @mcp.tool()
    async def get_member(list_id: str, email: str) -> str:
        """Get details for a specific subscriber by email address."""
        mc = get_client()
        h = mc.subscriber_hash(email)
        m = await mc.get(f"/lists/{list_id}/members/{h}")
        merge = m.get("merge_fields", {})
        return _fmt({
            "email": m.get("email_address", ""),
            "status": m.get("status", ""),
            "full_name": m.get("full_name", ""),
            "first_name": merge.get("FNAME", ""),
            "last_name": merge.get("LNAME", ""),
            "rating": m.get("member_rating", 0),
            "tags_count": m.get("tags_count", 0),
            "vip": m.get("vip", False),
            "source": m.get("source", ""),
            "ip_signup": m.get("ip_signup", ""),
            "language": m.get("language", ""),
            "location": m.get("location", {}),
            "subscribed_at": m.get("timestamp_opt", ""),
            "last_changed": m.get("last_changed", ""),
            "id": m.get("id", ""),
        })
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get details'), which is helpful, but lacks critical information such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what specific details are returned. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to use it effectively.

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?

The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently specifies the key constraint ('by email address'), making it easy to parse quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values) and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but misses usage guidelines, full parameter semantics, and behavioral context like permissions or limitations, leaving the agent with gaps despite the output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'by email address', which explains the 'email' parameter, but doesn't address the 'list_id' parameter at all. This leaves half the parameters unexplained, failing to adequately supplement the bare schema.

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 clearly states the verb ('Get details') and resource ('specific subscriber'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_member_activity' or 'search_members' that also retrieve member information, which prevents a perfect score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_members' or 'search_members'. It mentions 'by email address' but doesn't clarify if this is the only way to retrieve a member or when this method is preferred over others.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/AlexlaGuardia/mcp-mailchimp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server