Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Mailchimp MCP Server

Mailchimp MCP Server

by AlexlaGuardia
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

upload_file

Upload files to the Mailchimp file manager by providing a file name and base64-encoded data. Optionally assign a folder ID to organize assets.

Instructions

Upload a file to the Mailchimp file manager. file_data_base64: base64-encoded file content.

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "file_data_base64": "<file_data_base64>"
    },
    "name": "upload_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
file_data_base64Yes
folder_idNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only mentions base64 encoding but omits important details such as whether the upload replaces existing files, authentication required, or error handling.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise with two sentences, no fluff. It conveys the core purpose and one parameter hint efficiently.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The tool has 3 parameters and an output schema, but the description lacks details on return values, folder_id usage, file type restrictions, or error scenarios. It is incomplete for a file upload operation.

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 should explain all parameters. It only clarifies 'file_data_base64', leaving 'name' and 'folder_id' unexplained. This partial coverage is insufficient.

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 the tool's action ('Upload a file') and the target resource ('Mailchimp file manager'), distinguishing it from sibling tools which are mostly retrieval or other operations.

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 or when not to. There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or constraints like file size limits.

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