Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Mailchimp MCP Server

Mailchimp MCP Server

by AlexlaGuardia
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

send_test_email

Send a test email to up to 5 comma-separated addresses to preview a Mailchimp campaign before full deployment.

Instructions

Send a test email for a campaign. test_emails: comma-separated addresses (max 5).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "campaign_id": "<campaign_id>",
      "test_emails": "<test_emails>"
    },
    "name": "send_test_email"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
campaign_idYes
test_emailsYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the email format and limit, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it counts as sent, modifies campaign state, or requires specific auth). This is inadequate for a mutation tool.

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?

Two sentences conveying the core function and a critical parameter constraint. No superfluous words, perfectly efficient.

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 output schema exists and the tool is relatively straightforward, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits any mention of campaign state requirements or confirmation behavior, leaving gaps for an agent.

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

Parameters3/5

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 adds meaning for 'test_emails' (comma-separated, max 5) but provides no clarification for 'campaign_id'. The added info is helpful but incomplete.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Send a test email for a campaign', which is a specific verb-resource combination. The name 'send_test_email' and the description distinguish it from sibling tools like 'send_campaign' and 'schedule_campaign', as test is implied for verification before actual send.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'send_campaign' or 'schedule_campaign'. The description lacks contextual cues such as prerequisites, campaign state requirements, or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools