Skip to main content
Glama

get_member_activity

Retrieve subscriber activity data including opens, clicks, and bounces from Mailchimp to analyze engagement patterns and campaign performance.

Instructions

Get recent activity for a subscriber — opens, clicks, bounces, etc.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
list_idYes
emailYes
countNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Implementation Reference

  • The implementation of the 'get_member_activity' tool in mcp_mailchimp/server.py. It retrieves activity-feed data for a specific subscriber from Mailchimp and returns it as a formatted string.
    @mcp.tool()
    async def get_member_activity(list_id: str, email: str, count: int = 20) -> str:
        """Get recent activity for a subscriber — opens, clicks, bounces, etc."""
        mc = get_client()
        h = mc.subscriber_hash(email)
        data = await mc.get(
            f"/lists/{list_id}/members/{h}/activity-feed",
            params={"count": min(count, 50)},
        )
        activities = []
        for a in data.get("activity", []):
            activities.append({
                "action": a.get("action", ""),
                "title": a.get("title", ""),
                "timestamp": a.get("timestamp", ""),
                "campaign_id": a.get("campaign_id", ""),
            })
        return _fmt({"email": email, "activities": activities})
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves activity data ('opens, clicks, bounces, etc.'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like (though an output schema exists). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 very concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence that directly states the purpose with relevant examples ('opens, clicks, bounces, etc.'). There's no wasted text, and it efficiently communicates the core function without unnecessary details.

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 complexity (a read operation with 3 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks parameter explanations and behavioral context. The output schema mitigates some gaps by documenting return values, but the description should do more to compensate for the missing annotations and low schema coverage.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It doesn't mention any parameters, leaving 'list_id', 'email', and 'count' unexplained. For example, it doesn't clarify what 'list_id' refers to or how 'count' affects the results. With low schema coverage and no parameter info in the description, it fails to add meaningful semantics.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get recent activity for a subscriber — opens, clicks, bounces, etc.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('recent activity for a subscriber') with concrete examples. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_member' or 'search_members', which might also retrieve member-related data, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as how it differs from 'get_member' (which might retrieve basic info) or 'search_members' (which might list members). There's only an implied usage based on the purpose, but no explicit instructions.

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