Mailchimp MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation1/5
Multiple tools have overlapping purposes: lists vs audiences versions of growth history, batch subscribe, interest categories, and segments duplicate functionality. Members delete vs archive are also nearly identical, and members add_or_update overlaps with add/update. This makes tool selection highly ambiguous.
Naming Consistency2/5
The dominant pattern is mailchimp_<resource>_<action> but conventions are inconsistent: 'create' is used for campaigns/lists/templates, while 'add' is used for ecommerce stores/products/orders and webhooks. Also 'lists' and 'audiences' are used interchangeably for the same resources, and 'delete' vs 'archive' for members adds confusion.
Tool Count1/5
At 120 tools, this server is far beyond the recommended range. Even for a comprehensive Mailchimp API wrapper, the tool count is excessive and will overwhelm agents, increasing selection errors and cognitive load.
Completeness3/5
Covers many domains (campaigns, audiences, members, templates, automations, reports, landing pages, ecommerce, webhooks), but notable gaps exist: automations cannot be created or updated, promo rules lack add/update/delete, and ecommerce product variants are missing. Core workflows are present but not fully complete.
Average 3.1/5 across 100 of 120 tools scored. Lowest: 1.7/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing destructive behavior. It merely says 'delete' without stating permanence, irreversibility, or potential side effects, leaving the agent unaware of the tool's consequential nature.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It merely repeats the tool name without earning its place by adding value.
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?
For a destructive delete operation with no annotations or output schema, the description should explain that the deletion is permanent and irreversible. It does not, leaving critical context missing for a high-stakes action.
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?
The input schema provides 100% coverage for the only parameter (page_id), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but none are necessary given the schema's clarity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a landing page' is a direct restatement of the tool name (mailchimp_landing_pages_delete). It provides no additional specificity or differentiation from sibling tools, making it a tautology.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention that unpublish is a non-destructive alternative, nor any prerequisites or context for deletion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. 'Update a store' gives no information about mutability, whether the update is partial or full, required permissions, reversibility, or the response format. The agent has no basis to predict the tool's side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise but under-specified. 'Update a store' is just a restatement of the tool name and does not earn its place by adding information. It lacks even the field list that would make the sentence valuable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is dramatically insufficient. It does not explain the behavior of the update operation, return values, or any constraints. An agent cannot safely invoke this tool based on the available information.
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?
All five parameters are documented in the schema with descriptions, so the tool description does not need to repeat them. The schema already covers parameter meaning, and the description adds no additional context. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'store', which clearly identifies the tool's basic purpose. However, it lacks any detail about scope or fields, essentially paraphrasing the tool name without adding value. It distinguishes from sibling update tools only by the resource name.
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. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., that the store must already exist), no indication that 'store_id' is required, and no discussion of how it differs from other update tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update a segment' tells the agent nothing about whether this is a partial update, what fields are required, whether it affects existing members, or what the response contains. This is a significant gap 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.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (three words) but under-specified. For a tool with four parameters and nested objects, this is not appropriately sized; it lacks necessary detail, making it closer to under-specification than effective conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema and no context about the update behavior, return value, or side effects. The description is inadequate for an agent to understand the full scope of the operation, especially given the nested 'options' object and the need to know if it replaces or merges existing conditions.
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 100%, with each parameter having a clear description (e.g., 'Updated segment conditions'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update a segment' states the verb and resource but is vague, failing to specify the segment type or the nature of the update. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like create_segment or delete_segment, and merely restates the tool name.
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. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context on when to select this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'Update a product', which implies mutation but does not explain whether the update overwrites existing fields, requires the product to exist, or has any side effects. This is minimal transparency for a write operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (one sentence) but under-specified. For a tool with six parameters and no other documentation, this brevity sacrifices necessary detail. It fails to be appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema, no annotations, and a sparse description. It does not disclose update semantics, parameter relationships, return values, or any operational context. This is completely inadequate for a tool with six parameters and a data-modifying operation.
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 100%, with each parameter having a basic description (e.g., 'Updated URL', 'Store ID'). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema already provides adequate meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update a product' identifies a specific action (update) and resource (product), but it does not specify that this is for ecommerce products or mention the store context. While the tool name disambiguates, the description alone is vague and does not distinguish from other update tools in the sibling set.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states the action, with no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions. Sibling tools like mailchimp_ecommerce_products_add or mailchimp_ecommerce_products_delete are not referenced.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Update a template' with no mention of overwrite behavior, return values, permissions, or error conditions. This is a critical omission 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it is under-specified, lacking the detail needed to be genuinely helpful. It is neither verbose nor tautological, but it does not earn its place beyond stating the basic purpose.
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?
Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the update returns or what side effects occur. With four parameters, more context is necessary for an agent to use the tool correctly.
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?
The input schema provides complete descriptions for all four parameters (html, name, folder_id, template_id), achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no extra parameter information, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update a template' clearly identifies the action and resource, but it is vague and lacks scope details. It does not mention which template attributes can be updated or provide any differentiation from other template operations, making it adequate but not specific.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create, delete, or get. There are no exclusions or references to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'update' with no mention of how updates are applied (e.g., partial vs. full replacement), required permissions, side effects, or idempotency. This is a significant gap 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, it is perhaps too sparse, but as a structural matter it is efficiently written.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has nested objects (settings, tracking, recipients), no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description is only five words. It fails to explain the update semantics, response behavior, or required parameters beyond the schema. This is inadequate for the tool's complexity.
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 coverage is 100% and each parameter has a brief description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The schema descriptions are minimal but present.
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 ('update') and resource (campaign), distinguishing it from create/delete/send operations. However, 'settings' is somewhat narrow given the schema also includes tracking and recipients, and it doesn't explicitly distinguish from content updates.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like mailchimp_campaigns_set_content or mailchimp_campaigns_send. The description is a simple statement with no context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
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. 'Add a new order' reveals only that it creates a resource, but says nothing about side effects, idempotency, required permissions, or behavior on duplicate order IDs. This is minimal even for a write operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
At one sentence, the description is technically concise, but it is under-specified for a tool with 9 parameters and nested objects. It lacks any structural cues about required fields or relationships, making it more an omission than efficient writing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (9 params, nested customer and lines objects) and the absence of annotations or output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain required fields, how orders relate to stores, or what the response will be, leaving the agent without sufficient context to invoke the tool correctly.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already documents, but since the schema fully describes all 9 parameters, the description is not required to compensate.
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 'Add a new order' clearly states the action (add/create) and the resource (ecommerce order), distinguishing it from sibling tools like update, delete, list, and get. It is specific enough to be unambiguous, though it lacks any extra scope detail like 'in a specific store' that would elevate it to a 5.
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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing store_id), nor does it contrast with order update or delete operations. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries all responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Update an order' reveals nothing about partial vs. full updates, side effects, required identifiers, or response details. It adds no information beyond what the tool name already implies.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (three words), but this is under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. It omits essential context needed for correct tool invocation, so it fails to 'earn its place'.
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?
An update operation with 6 parameters and no output schema requires more than a one-line description. The description doesn't clarify how store_id and order_id are used, which fields are updatable, or what happens if optional fields are omitted. The schema covers parameter names but not the behavioral context.
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?
All 6 parameters have descriptions in the schema, achieving 100% coverage. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 operation ('Update') and the resource ('an order'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from other update tools or provide additional scope, so it doesn't reach a 5.
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 over alternatives like mailchimp_ecommerce_orders_add or mailchimp_ecommerce_orders_delete. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only restates the action ('Update an existing webhook') and provides no information about side effects, permissions, idempotency, or error behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only four words, which makes it highly concise, but it is under-specified for a tool with a nested 5-parameter schema. While front-loaded, it is not appropriately sized; it should provide more context to be useful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the tool (5 parameters, nested objects) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the one-line description is severely inadequate. It fails to explain how to use the tool, the purpose of required fields, or what the response entails.
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?
The input schema provides full descriptions for all 5 parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. The baseline score of 3 applies since the schema already handles parameter documentation.
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 uses a clear verb ('Update') and specifies the resource ('existing webhook'), distinguishing it from webhooks_create and webhooks_delete. However, it does not elaborate on scope or specific updatable fields, so it stops short of being fully descriptive.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mailchimp_webhooks_create or mailchimp_webhooks_delete. No prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual hints are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but 'Update a cart' is essentially a restatement of the tool name. It does not disclose whether the update is partial or full replacement, what happens if the cart does not exist, or any authentication or idempotency characteristics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short, front-loaded phrase with no redundancy, but it is under-specified to the point of reading like a title rather than a useful description. It is concise but fails to provide substantive guidance, which prevents a higher score.
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?
Given the tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about the operation, such as whether this is a partial update, whether the cart must already exist, and what the response contains. The schema lists fields but does not clarify update semantics, leaving the agent under-informed for correct invocation.
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?
The input schema describes all five parameters with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to explain parameter meanings. However, the description adds no extra semantic value, such as which fields are commonly updated together or how omitted optional fields are treated, leaving the baseline of 3.
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 'Update a cart' clearly identifies the action (update) and the resource (cart), matching the tool name and differentiating it from sibling operations like add, get, delete, or list for carts. However, it lacks any additional context such as which fields can be updated or that it modifies an existing cart, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like mailchimp_ecommerce_carts_add or mailchimp_ecommerce_carts_delete. The description provides no context about prerequisites, such as requiring an existing cart, nor does it mention that add should be used for new carts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Add a new customer' with no mention of idempotency, overwrite behavior, required parent resources, or any side effects. This is a creation operation but the description provides no behavioral context beyond the verb 'Add'.
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 a single, focused sentence that is easy to parse and front-loaded. It is not bloated, though it is so minimal that it borders on under-specification rather than effective conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a creation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description provides no context about required fields, relationship to stores or other ecommerce resources, error conditions, or return values. It is inadequate for an agent to safely and effectively use the tool.
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 100%, so all seven parameters have descriptions that define their meaning. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter context, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents each field clearly (e.g., 'opt_in_status' as 'Marketing opt-in status').
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 'Add a new customer' clearly states the action (add) and resource (customer), which is a specific verb+resource pair. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this ecommerce customer tool from the sibling mailchimp_members_add, which also adds a customer/member to an audience; the name 'ecommerce_customers_add' provides the differentiation but the description alone is generic.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mailchimp_members_add or mailchimp_ecommerce_customers_update. The description only states what it does, with no mention of prerequisites (e.g., store must already exist) or contexts where it should be preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Create a new campaign'. It does not state whether the campaign is created as a draft, whether it causes any immediate sending, what permissions are needed, or what the response contains.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence that essentially restates the tool name without adding specifics. While not verbose, it is under-specified and fails to convey necessary context, so it does not earn its place.
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?
Given the tool's complexity—nested objects, multiple required fields, and no output schema—the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the creation flow, the significance of the 'type' enum, or what happens after creation, leaving the agent with insufficient guidance.
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?
The input schema provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents, so it does not exceed the baseline.
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 action (create) and resource (a new campaign), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like update, delete, or send. However, it lacks scope details such as 'creates a draft campaign' or 'does not send', which would make it fully specific.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for creating a draft that will later need to be sent or scheduled, nor does it reference sibling tools like mailchimp_campaigns_update or mailchimp_campaigns_send.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update a customer' reveals only that a mutation occurs, with no information about partial vs. full updates, behavior when the customer does not exist, or what response to expect. This is a significant gap 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative, which slightly reduces the score from a perfect 5.
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?
For a tool with 5 parameters, 2 required, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It fails to mention that store_id and customer_id identify the customer, that other fields are optional updates, or any operational context. The schema fills some gaps, but the description does not adequately support an agent's decision-making.
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?
The schema descriptions cover 100% of the parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it neither enhances nor hurts parameter understanding.
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 'Update a customer' clearly identifies the verb and resource, but it lacks the 'e-commerce' store context and does not differentiate from sibling tools like mailchimp_members_update. The tool name provides the necessary specificity, but the description itself is generic.
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 such as mailchimp_ecommerce_customers_add or mailchimp_ecommerce_customers_get, nor are prerequisites like store_id and customer_id explained. The description simply states the action without any contextual direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Create a new template,' which implies a mutation but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as permissions, side effects, reversibility, or what happens on duplicate names. This is similar to the update_drive example, which also scored 2.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short but under-specified. It is a single sentence that merely restates the tool name, so it does not earn its place by adding value. It is not a case of efficient conciseness but rather insufficient information.
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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain any operational context, return values, or behavioral nuances. The schema covers the parameters, but the description lacks essential context for a create operation, similar to the update_drive example.
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?
The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (html, name, folder_id), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra semantic meaning to the parameters, but the schema already handles that.
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 action ('Create') and resource ('a new template'), which is a specific verb+resource pair. It distinguishes from sibling tools like update or delete by the verb, but it adds no scope or additional context beyond the tool's name.
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, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It is entirely silent on usage context, earning a 'no guidance' score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get all landing pages' without mentioning pagination (count/offset), sorting options, response structure, or that results may be limited. This is misleading as 'all' implies no pagination.
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 a single, concise sentence that is easy to parse and front-loads the core action. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation, though it could include more detail without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the response contains, but it does not. It also fails to mention pagination behavior, sorting, or any filtering capabilities, making it highly incomplete for a tool with four optional parameters.
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?
The input schema covers all four parameters (count, offset, sort_dir, sort_field) with descriptions, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 action ('Get all') and the resource ('landing pages in your Mailchimp account'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like mailchimp_landing_pages_get (single page) and create/update/delete operations, making it unambiguous as a list operation.
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 such as mailchimp_landing_pages_get, or how it differs from other list tools. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. 'Update list settings' only implies mutation; it does not state whether updates are partial (e.g., only provided fields change) or full replacements, what happens to unspecified settings, or whether any permissions are required. This is a critical gap for a mutation tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short, containing no filler, but it is under-specified. It reads as a fragment rather than a complete sentence and lacks crucial context, making it not well-rounded. While it is front-loaded and terse, the brevity sacrifices utility, so it does not reach the 'appropriately sized' standard.
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?
Given that this tool has six parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is far too minimal. It does not explain update semantics (e.g., partial update behavior), return values, or any side effects. The schema covers parameter structure but not behavior, and the description fails to fill that gap, leaving the agent ill-informed for correct invocation.
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?
The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptive texts for all six parameters, including 'Updated list name' and 'Updated contact information'. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies. The schema handles parameter meaning adequately.
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 'Update list settings' clearly indicates this tool performs an update operation targeting list configuration. It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools like mailchimp_lists_get, mailchimp_lists_create, and mailchimp_lists_delete, though it does not clarify which specific settings beyond what the schema lists. It is direct and not misleading, but it lacks a fuller explanation of the scope of 'list settings'.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mailchimp_lists_create or mailchimp_lists_update_segment. It does not state that the list must already exist, nor does it suggest any prerequisites. The description leaves the agent without decision-making support for choosing this tool over similar update tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only indicates a read operation but doesn't mention pagination behavior (despite count/offset parameters), filtering possibilities, or any side effects. The claim of 'all' is potentially misleading given the pagination parameters.
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 a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is easy to parse, though it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 params, pagination, filtering) and the existence of a nearly identical sibling, the description is too skeletal. It lacks important context about pagination, the relationship to the lists version, and expected return behavior, leaving the agent underprepared.
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?
The schema already provides descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage), so the description does not need to repeat them. However, the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, making it a baseline 3. It does not clarify how the type filter works or the defaults for count/offset.
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 action ('Get all interest categories') and resource ('for a list'), which matches the name. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the closely named sibling mailchimp_lists_get_interest_categories, so it gets a 4 rather than a 5.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that there is a similar sibling for lists, nor any criteria for choosing this audiences endpoint. This leaves the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the basic action. It does not mention pagination (despite count/offset parameters), default behavior, response structure, or any permissions or side effects. The agent cannot infer important operational details from this description alone.
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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words, earning a perfect score for conciseness.
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?
Given the tool has eight parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain return values, pagination behavior, or the meaning of 'segments' (e.g., saved vs static vs fuzzy). This leaves significant gaps for an agent trying to use the tool effectively.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all eight parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, which aligns with the baseline of 3. It does not explain how filters interact or what the default values are.
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 'Get all segments for a list/audience' clearly identifies the action (get), the resource (segments), and the scope (list/audience). It is specific and directly reflects the tool name, though it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like mailchimp_lists_get_segments, which presumably serve a similar purpose.
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 does not mention any exclusions or suggest related tools for different scenarios, such as getting a single segment or creating segments. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'pause' and does not explain side effects (e.g., whether paused emails can be resumed, impact on scheduled sends, or required permissions). This is a significant gap 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?
The description is one short, front-loaded sentence with no redundant information. It communicates the core action and resource efficiently, earning a top score for conciseness.
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 is relatively simple with two parameters and no output schema, but with zero annotations, the description must compensate. It fails to explain the operational context—what pausing an email does behaviorally, any state requirements, or how this integrates with workflow management. The description is under-specified for a complete tool understanding.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (workflow_id and email_id), so the schema already documents parameter purpose. The description adds no extra semantic detail about formats, relationships, or how to obtain these IDs, which aligns with the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.
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 'Pause a specific automation email' clearly states the action (pause) and the resource (a specific automation email), distinguishing it from the sibling tool mailchimp_automations_pause which pauses the entire workflow. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling or elaborate on the scope difference, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mailchimp_automations_pause or mailchimp_automations_start_email. The description simply states the action without any context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries all responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states a read operation but does not mention what fields are returned, potential error conditions, rate limits, or any authentication sensitivity. Minimal transparency beyond the operation itself.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. It is structurally clean, though slightly under-specified for a full understanding. Still, it earns its place as a concise summary.
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 simplicity of a one-parameter get-by-ID tool with no output schema, the description is minimally viable but does not clarify what 'details' includes or what the response shape will be. This is adequate for an agent to attempt the call, but not enough to anticipate the result.
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 100% (campaign_id is described as 'Campaign ID'), so the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 applies since the parameter is self-explanatory and no additional semantics are needed.
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 identifies the action ('Get'), the resource ('details for a specific campaign'), and the key discriminator 'by ID'. This distinguishes it from list or content-specific operations, though 'details' is somewhat generic given siblings like get_content.
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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mailchimp_campaigns_get_content, get_send_checklist, or campaigns_list. No context about preferred scenarios or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states the action without explaining what replication entails (e.g., whether it creates a new campaign, copies all settings, or has any side effects). This lack of transparency is a significant gap for a tool that presumably creates a new resource.
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 extremely concise, using a single phrase that directly states the purpose. While it is not verbose, it lacks any structure or additional details that could enhance clarity. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter tool but does not fully capitalize on the opportunity to provide more context.
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?
Given the tool has only one parameter and no annotations or output schema, the description is still too sparse. It does not explain what 'replicate' means in the Mailchimp context (e.g., creating a new campaign with identical settings), nor does it mention any prerequisites or side effects. The description is minimally viable but leaves the agent uncertain about the full scope of the operation.
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?
The schema fully describes the only parameter 'campaign_id' with the description 'Campaign ID to replicate', which matches the tool description. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no additional meaning, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already handles parameter 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 verb 'replicate' (with 'duplicate' as a synonym) and the resource 'campaign'. It accurately conveys the core action and is not a mere tautology, though it does not differentiate from related sibling tools like 'create' or 'update'.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'create' or 'copy'. The description provides no context about the appropriate scenario for replication, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action itself. It does not mention the irreversible nature of sending, that all recipients will receive it, or that the campaign must meet certain conditions—significant gaps for a mutating operation.
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 a single concise sentence with no filler, front-loading the action clearly. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though its brevity limits its informational value.
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?
For a simple tool, the description is minimal but lacks important context about side effects, requirements, or when to use it. Given no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more behavioral context; it does not, leaving the tool under-specified.
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?
The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter (campaign_id with description 'Campaign ID to send'). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond restating the action; the schema description is sufficient, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb 'Send' with the resource 'a campaign' and adds 'immediately', clearly indicating an immediate send action. This distinguishes it from scheduling tools via the word 'immediately', though it does not explicitly contrast with test or other send-like 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 versus alternatives like schedule or test. The description only states the action, with no mention of prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision-making support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It only states the action 'delete' without mentioning that deletion is permanent, whether special permissions are needed, or what happens to associated data. The verb itself implies destructive behavior, but the description adds no risk-related context.
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 a single sentence of only three words, which is extremely concise and front-loaded. It contains no filler and clearly states the core function. It works well for such a simple operation, though it could be slightly more informative.
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?
For a simple delete operation with two well-described parameters, the description is minimally viable. However, given the lack of annotations and output schema, it would benefit from noting the destructive nature or expected outcome (e.g., successful deletion). It is adequate but not thorough.
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?
The input schema already provides clear descriptions for both parameters (store_id, cart_id) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema offers, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 'Delete' and the resource 'a cart', making the action unambiguous. It does not explicitly mention 'ecommerce' but the tool name disambiguates it from other delete tools. The lack of extra context on which cart or under what conditions 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool, what prerequisites exist, or how it differs from other delete tools. There are no mentions of alternatives, exclusions, or when not to use it. This is a complete absence of usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the read-like action but doesn't explicitly confirm read-only safety, return contents, error conditions, or required permissions. The lack of annotation support leaves a significant transparency gap.
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 short sentence, incredibly concise and front-loaded. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.
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?
Despite the tool's simplicity, the absence of an output schema and annotations means the description should explain what information is returned or any behavioral expectations. It does not, leaving the agent without enough context to fully understand the operation's result.
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 coverage is 100% with simple parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it doesn't explain the relationship between store_id and cart_id or their format, but the schema already covers the basics.
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 function as 'Get information about a specific cart,' identifying both the action and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling get tools or list operations, though the cart resource specificity is implicit in the name.
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 mailchimp_ecommerce_carts_list or other resource getters. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or why one would choose this over siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Delete a customer' without mentioning that deletion is permanent, what happens to associated data, or any required permissions.
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 a single concise sentence with no redundant words. For a simple delete tool it is appropriately brief, though it borders on underspecification.
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?
Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description omits important context such as the administrative/permanent nature of the deletion, the store-specific scope, and any potential side effects. The two parameters are clear, but the description does not fully cover the operation's context.
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?
The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (store_id and customer_id), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter context or meaning beyond what the schema already states.
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 'Delete a customer' clearly states the action and object, but does not explicitly mention that it is for ecommerce customers or distinguish it from other delete tools in the sibling list. The specificity comes mainly from the tool name itself.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mailchimp_ecommerce_customers_update or mailchimp_members_delete. It does not provide any context, preconditions, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Delete an order,' which implies destructiveness but does not state irreversibility, permission requirements, or any side effects.
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 three words long, perfectly concise and front-loaded. Every word adds value with no redundancy.
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?
This is a simple delete tool with 2 required parameters, but the lack of annotations and output schema means the description should provide more context about behavior or consequences. The minimal text does not make the tool fully understandable for a standalone 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 coverage is 100% with both parameters ('store_id' and 'order_id') already documented. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 states a clear verb ('Delete') and resource ('an order'), making the action obvious. However, it does not differentiate from other delete tools among the siblings beyond the tool name, so it misses the top 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool or how it relates to alternatives like mailchimp_ecommerce_orders_update. The description is purely declarative with no context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description assumes full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state the operation is read-only, nor does it mention side effects, permissions, or return value specifics, leaving behavior largely opaque beyond the verb 'get'.
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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. It contains no fluff or repetition, maximizing efficiency for such a brief definition.
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?
Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is too sparse for full contextual completeness. It fails to specify what product information is returned or how to locate the required IDs, leaving the agent with only the most basic understanding.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage with 'Store ID' and 'Product ID' clearly documented. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, but given full schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 retrieves information for a specific product, using the verb 'get' and resource 'product'. The word 'specific' distinguishes it from list operations, but it does not provide additional differentiation from other sibling get tools.
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, such as when to use list products or how to obtain product_id. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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. It only says 'add', which implies creation, but does not disclose whether the operation is idempotent, whether existing codes are overwritten, what happens on duplicate IDs, or what the response contains. Minimal behavioral disclosure.
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, direct sentence with no unnecessary wording. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
For a write operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the necessity of an existing promo rule, potential uniqueness constraints on the code ID, or return behavior. Sibling tools for adding other ecommerce entities suggest more context could be provided.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully describes all six parameters. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, such as relationships between parameters or format requirements, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 'Add a promo code to a promo rule' clearly states the action (add) and the resource (promo code) within the context of a promo rule. It distinguishes from sibling tools like mailchimp_ecommerce_promo_codes_list, though it does not explicitly mention store scope.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing promo rule) or when a different operation (update/delete) would be appropriate. The description only states the action without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Create' without explaining side effects, required permissions, or what happens upon successful creation. It does not mention whether the page is automatically published or if additional steps are needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief, consisting of a single phrase that largely restates the tool name. While it is free of fluff, it is under-specified for a tool with 7 parameters and nested objects, making it more skeletal than concise.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, nested tracking object) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is markedly incomplete. It provides no information about input expectations, return values, or potential errors, leaving the agent with only the schema to understand the tool.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, so all 7 parameters are already documented with their meanings. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'landing page', which accurately identifies the tool's function. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list, get, update, delete, publish, and unpublish, all of which operate on existing landing pages.
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 such as mailchimp_landing_pages_update or mailchimp_landing_pages_publish. There is no mention of prerequisites, required inputs, or the relationship to other landing page operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 only says 'publish' without explaining the effect (e.g., making the page publicly visible), whether it is reversible, or any validation steps. This is a significant gap 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence with no wasted words, front-loaded with the action verb. It is appropriately brief but could benefit from a bit more context without being bloated.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, this description is the sole source of context. It does not explain the result of publishing (making the page live), any prerequisites, or that unpublish exists as the reverse operation. For a state-changing tool, this is incomplete even for a simple tool.
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?
The schema covers the only parameter 'page_id' with a description, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so no uplift is warranted.
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 uses a specific verb 'publish' and resource 'landing page', clearly identifying the action. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'mailchimp_landing_pages_unpublish' by being the opposite operation, though it lacks detail like 'make live'.
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 given on when to use this tool, prerequisites, or alternatives. It does not mention the existence of unpublish for reversing the action, nor does it explain any workflow context such as needing a draft page.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 disclosing side effects or mutation behavior. It only says 'Update a landing page' without indicating whether it performs a partial or full update, what happens to omitted fields, required permissions, or potential irreversible changes. This is insufficient 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no fluff or redundancy. It is efficiently front-loaded with the core action. However, it is perhaps too abbreviated given the tool's complexity, but as a concise statement it earns credit for brevity.
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?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, and the tool's complexity (6 parameters including a nested tracking object), the description is far from complete. It provides no information about return values, potential errors, or behavioral nuances, leaving the agent with significant gaps in understanding.
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 100% as every parameter has a description, but those descriptions merely prefix 'Updated' to the parameter name (e.g., 'Updated page name') and add little semantic value beyond the property names themselves. Since coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description adds marginal value.
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 action 'Update' and the resource 'a landing page', which is specific enough to distinguish from list/get/create/delete/publish/unpublish operations among siblings. However, it does not elaborate on what fields can be updated, which would further clarify the tool's scope.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, whether to use this for modifying existing pages versus create for new ones, or any exclusion context. The description simply states the action without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'add or update' but does not explain the fate of invalid members, idempotency, default behavior of update_existing, or whether the operation is atomic. This is a significant gap for a batch write operation.
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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the core action immediately and is well-structured for quick scanning.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (batch operation, nested members array, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too minimal. It lacks context on return values, error handling, rate limits, or differences from closely related tools, leaving the agent under-informed.
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?
The input schema fully describes all parameters (list_id, members, update_existing) with clear descriptions, so the parameter semantics are largely covered by the schema. The description adds no new parameter details, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.
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 function: 'Batch add or update multiple list members at once' – a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish from similar sibling tools like mailchimp_members_batch_add_remove or mailchimp_audiences_batch_subscribe, so it misses the differentiation bonus.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as individual member add/update or other batch operations. There are no usage contexts, exclusions, or prerequisites mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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. It only states the action and does not disclose idempotency, permission requirements, duplicate handling, or the response format. The mutating nature is implied by 'create' but not elaborated.
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, concise sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized given that the schema fully documents the parameters.
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 description lacks any operational context such as the result of the call, potential errors, or the fact that this mutates the account. Without an output schema or annotations, an agent is left to infer the full behavior from the tool name and schema, which is incomplete.
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?
The schema has 100% description coverage, with every parameter and nested field documented. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameters, so it relies entirely on the schema, which warrants the baseline score of 3.
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 'Create a new audience/list' clearly states the action (create) and the resource (audience/list), which is distinct from sibling tools like update/delete/get. It clarifies that 'lists' are also called 'audiences' in Mailchimp, but otherwise adds little beyond the tool's name.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions, prerequisites, or context are provided. The schema lists required fields, but the description itself offers no decision framework.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states a basic 'Create' action. It does not mention required permissions, whether the list must exist, the difference between static and saved segments, or any side effects. This falls far short of providing meaningful behavioral context.
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 a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. While it is under-specified, it avoids unnecessary words and is appropriately sized for a simple create operation.
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 four parameters including nested objects and supports two segment types (options vs static_segment), but the description does not clarify these distinctions or mention the response. With no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin to ensure correct selection and invocation among many sibling tools.
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 100%, with each parameter having a description. The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 action 'Create' and the resource 'a new segment for a list'. It is specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like update/delete/get segments, which is sufficient for an agent to understand the core function.
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 such as mailchimp_lists_update_segment or mailchimp_audiences_create_segment. The description does not mention prerequisites, use cases, or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic function. It does not reveal pagination behavior, sort defaults, response structure, or that it is a read-only operation, leaving important usage details implicit.
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 that immediately conveys the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, excelling in conciseness.
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?
Given the absence of annotations and an output schema, the description is too sparse to provide complete context. It fails to explain what growth statistics entail, how pagination works, or what the caller should expect in the response, making it insufficiently complete for a tool with 5 parameters.
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 100%, so each parameter has a description. The tool description adds no extra parameter context or nuances beyond what the schema already provides, which meets the baseline for high coverage.
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 retrieves month-by-month growth statistics for a list, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool mailchimp_audiences_get_growth_history, which likely serves a similar purpose.
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 over alternatives, such as mailchimp_audiences_get_growth_history. The description does not mention any exclusions or conditions, leaving the agent without clear decision criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it gets all interest categories, adding the clarifying phrase 'group titles', but omits any details about pagination, filtering semantics, response format, or permissions. For a list operation, this is minimal transparency.
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, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It contains no fluff and every word adds value, making it highly concise and appropriately front-loaded.
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?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is too thin to be complete. It doesn't explain what is returned beyond the categories, doesn't mention pagination behavior, and doesn't distinguish this from the similar audiences tool. For a tool with four parameters and no output schema, more context is needed.
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?
The input schema provides 100% coverage, with descriptions for all four parameters including a filter type enum. The description adds only the context 'all' and 'group titles', which doesn't enhance parameter understanding. Per the calibration rule, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema already documents parameters fully.
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', the resource 'interest categories', and the scope 'for a list'. It is specific enough to distinguish from other list operations, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'mailchimp_audiences_get_interest_categories' which serves a similar purpose.
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 the audiences version or 'mailchimp_lists_get_interests'. It is implied that it's for retrieving interest categories for a list, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use criteria are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only restates the tool's name. It does not disclose that 'all' may involve pagination via count/offset, that results may be filtered by type or creation date, or any other behavioral nuances relevant for an API call.
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 a single sentence with no wasted words, making it concise. However, it is so brief that it barely adds value over the tool name, lacking structure or additional context.
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?
Given 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is insufficient. It does not explain the return format, pagination behavior, or how the list_id maps to the segments, leaving the agent with significant ambiguity despite the schema coverage.
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?
The schema provides descriptions for all 6 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema already documents, such as the meaning of list_id or how filters interact.
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 action ('Get') and resource ('all segments for a list'), which is specific. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the singular 'mailchimp_lists_get_segment' or the similarly named 'mailchimp_audiences_get_segments' sibling, relying on the tool name for 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?
There is no usage guidance whatsoever. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like getting a single segment or creating a segment, nor does it mention prerequisites or how it fits into a workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it merely says 'Get all lists/audiences.' It fails to mention that the result is likely paginated with count/offset parameters, that 'all' may be limited by defaults, or that filtering by email/date is possible. The description is too sparse to set expectations.
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, direct sentence with no unnecessary words. It is immediately readable and front-loaded with the action and object.
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?
For a list endpoint with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain pagination behavior, default limits, available filters, or the structure of the returned data. This makes the tool incomplete for an agent that must predict response formatting or handle large result sets.
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?
The input schema already describes all 7 parameters (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add parameter details. However, the description adds no extra semantic value beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for schema-covered parameters.
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 action ('Get') and the resource ('all lists/audiences'), making the tool's basic purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate this from sibling tools like mailchimp_lists_get or mailchimp_audiences_get_stats, relying on the name to imply listing functionality.
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 such as mailchimp_lists_get for a single list or mailchimp_audiences_get_stats for statistics. There is no mention of filtering, pagination, or typical use cases, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic add action and does not disclose critical traits such as behavior on duplicate email addresses, idempotency, error handling, or permission requirements. Given the existence of add_or_update, the lack of clarity on duplicate handling is a significant gap.
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 concise sentence with no redundant information. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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?
For a tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It lacks essential context about when to use the tool, what happens on duplicate members, and expected outcomes, making it incomplete for reliable agent invocation.
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?
The schema provides descriptions for all 9 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents.
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 'Add a new member to a list' clearly states the action (add) and resource (member to a list). It is specific enough to distinguish from update/delete operations, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'mailchimp_members_add_or_update', so it falls short of full 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 like add_or_update or batch_subscribe. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Add or remove tags' without explaining side effects (e.g., whether existing tags are preserved, whether the operation is idempotent, or what happens if the member doesn't exist). The schema provides some context via the status field, but the description adds little beyond that.
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, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It effectively communicates the core purpose without padding.
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?
Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not clarify whether tags are merged with existing tags or replace them, nor does it mention any return value or error conditions. The schema is rich, but the description should provide more operational context for a write operation.
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 100%, with each parameter already described (e.g., status 'active=add tag, inactive=remove tag'). The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 action ('Add or remove tags') and the resource ('for a member'), providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool mailchimp_members_batch_add_remove, which also handles tag additions/removals, so it lacks explicit 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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like batch_add_remove or get_tags. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., member must exist) or scenarios where this tool is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not add behavioral context beyond the bare action. It does not disclose return format, pagination, error conditions, or authentication requirements, which are important for a tool of this nature.
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 focused sentence with no filler, making it maximally concise. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, which is ideal for a simple tool.
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?
For a tool with no output schema, the description should at least hint at return values or pagination behavior. It does neither, and it lacks any contextual notes about prerequisites or limitations. While the tool is simple, the description leaves the agent without enough information about what to expect.
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 100% with minimal descriptions ('List ID' and 'Member email address'). The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate; it neither compensates nor detracts.
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 'Get all tags assigned to a member' uses a specific verb and resource, making the purpose clear. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_tags and search_tags, though it could be slightly more explicit about the member identification context.
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. It does not mention that this is the correct choice for retrieving a member's tags, nor does it exclude cases like adding/removing tags or searching across tags. The usage context is only implied by the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states that it updates an existing member, but does not mention side effects, permission requirements, behavior for non-existent members, or what fields are updated. The lack of detail is a significant gap 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?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for the information it conveys, though it could be expanded for better guidance.
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 7 parameters including nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations. A one-sentence description is inadequate for understanding return values, error scenarios, or how to use nested fields. The large sibling set also increases the need for more contextual detail.
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 100%, so every parameter has at least a basic description. The tool description itself adds no parameter information, but the baseline is 3 due to full schema coverage. Parameter descriptions are minimal (e.g., 'VIP status') but sufficient for basic understanding.
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 'Update an existing list member' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating a mutation on a member. It distinguishes from 'add' by stating 'existing', but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'add_or_update' or other member mutations like 'archive' or 'delete'.
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 siblings such as 'mailchimp_members_add', 'mailchimp_members_add_or_update', or 'mailchimp_members_archive'. The description gives no context about prerequisites or alternative scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the basic action. It does not mention pagination behavior (though parameters imply it), response format, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what 'detailed' means in terms of data scope. This is a significant gap for a read operation with no annotation safety net.
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 a single sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. While it is brief, it is not under-specified to the point of being a tautology; it communicates the core action effectively, though 'detailed' is somewhat vague.
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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description provides only a minimal phrase. It offers no context about the report's structure, how to interpret results, or how it relates to other report tools. The lack of detail leaves the agent with insufficient information to fully understand the tool's behavior and output.
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 100%, so all parameters (count, since, offset, campaign_id) are already described in the schema. The tool description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond 'open information', so the baseline of 3 is appropriate—schema does the heavy lifting without needing further elaboration.
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 'Get detailed open information for a campaign' uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('open information') tied to a campaign. It clearly indicates the tool's function, and the resource type ('open') distinguishes it from sibling tools like click details, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself.
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 such as mailchimp_reports_get_click_details or mailchimp_reports_get_email_activity. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get', implying a read operation, but provides no detail on pagination (count/offset), response format, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool that likely returns a list with optional filters.
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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, its brevity veers toward under-specification, but for a simple read tool it is appropriately concise.
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 description is too thin for a list tool with 5 optional parameters and no output schema. It does not mention that the tool supports filtering by type or send time, nor does it clarify that it returns a list of reports. The schema provides parameter details, but the description fails to orient the agent on the tool's scope and return behavior.
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 100%, meaning all five parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description itself adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies. The filtering options are fully documented in the schema, so no additional compensation is needed.
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 action ('Get') and resource ('campaign reports') with a singular intent. However, it lacks differentiation from sibling tools like mailchimp_reports_get, which also retrieves campaign report data, so it does not fully distinguish between listing and retrieving a specific report.
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 does not mention that this tool is for listing multiple reports, nor does it reference mailchimp_reports_get for individual report retrieval. Users are left to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply states 'Delete a template' without mentioning that deletion is permanent, whether it can affect other resources, or any required permissions. The destructive nature is implied but not explicitly discussed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short, essentially restating the tool name. It is under-specified rather than genuinely concise, as it doesn't earn its place by adding information beyond the name itself.
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?
For a simple delete tool, the description omits important context such as irreversibility, error behavior, and return values. With no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more reassurance or caution but does not.
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?
The input schema already describes the only parameter, template_id, as 'Template ID to delete', providing 100% coverage. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already states, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 'Delete a template' uses a specific verb and target resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like templates_update or templates_get. It unambiguously states the action and object.
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, such as when to delete versus update or list templates. It lacks any context about prerequisites or situations where deletion is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description offers no behavioral details such as pagination, filtering capabilities, or return format. The phrase 'Get all templates' could misleadingly suggest a single unbounded response rather than a paginated list.
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 a single sentence, making it highly concise and front-loaded. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices informative detail, though that is more of a completeness issue than conciseness.
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?
With 10 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not mention that the tool supports filtering, sorting, and pagination, nor does it clarify the response shape. The agent would need to rely on the schema alone, which lacks higher-level context.
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?
The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the schema already explains each parameter's purpose. The description adds no additional semantic context about the parameters, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 it retrieves templates from Mailchimp, with a specific verb ('Get') and resource (templates). It differentiates from sibling tools like mailchimp_campaigns_list by naming the resource, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other template operations like get/update.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer based on the tool name. There is no mention of when to choose this over mailchimp_campaigns_list or other list tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
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 merely restates the tool name without revealing return format, pagination behavior, filtering constraints, or the read-only nature of the operation. The description adds no meaningful behavioral context beyond what the name and schema already imply.
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, direct sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it immediately clear what the tool does.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should explain what is returned. It does not mention pagination (count/offset) or any filtering behavior. It also lacks guidance on when to use this tool relative to sibling e-commerce tools, leaving the agent with incomplete context for invocation.
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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any semantic value beyond what the schema already provides; the phrase 'for a promo rule' aligns with rule_id but is already documented as 'Promo rule ID'.
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 action (get all) and resource (promo codes) scoped to a specific promo rule. It is distinctly different from sibling tools like mailchimp_ecommerce_promo_codes_add (which adds) and mailchimp_ecommerce_promo_rules_list (which lists rules, not codes).
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as promo_codes_add or promo_rules_list. No context is provided about the relationship between store_id and rule_id or when pagination parameters are appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply restates the tool's name ('Add a new e-commerce store') without revealing any behavioral traits such as permissions required, idempotency, error handling, or what happens if the store ID already exists. No value beyond the name is added.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple create operation and every word earns its place.
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 no annotations and no output schema, so the description must compensate by explaining context such as required relationships (e.g., list_id must belong to an existing list) and expected behavior on success or conflict. The one-line description does not provide this, making it inadequate for a mutation tool with 8 parameters.
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?
The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the schema already explains each parameter's meaning. The description adds no parameter-level information. According to the baseline, a high coverage schema earns a 3 even without additional detail in the description.
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 'Add a new e-commerce store' clearly states the specific verb ('Add') and resource ('e-commerce store'), and it distinguishes this tool from its sibling tools like list, get, update, and delete. It is not a tautology because it adds 'new' and the intent is unambiguous.
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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., an existing list_id) or when to use update instead of add. The usage is only implied by the tool name and description, which is insufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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. It only says 'Get details', implying a safe read operation, but does not disclose what details are returned, error behaviors, authentication needs, or any side effects. This is minimal transparency.
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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately sized for a simple get operation, earning its place without fluff.
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?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what 'details' means and provide more context. It is too terse to fully inform an agent about what to expect on success or failure, making it incomplete for practical use.
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?
The schema has 100% description coverage with 'List ID' and 'Segment ID', so the schema already documents the parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying these identify the target segment.
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 uses a specific verb 'get' and resource 'specific segment', clearly indicating a singular retrieval operation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mailchimp_lists_get_segments (list), create_segment, update_segment, and delete_segment.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no context about how it relates to other segment operations. The description only states the action without any usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'create' which implies a write operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as permissions, idempotency, or the distinction between saved and static segment handling. The description is not contradictory but is minimal.
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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. No unnecessary words.
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?
The description is adequately clear for a simple create operation, but given the absence of annotations and the presence of sibling tools, it would benefit from clarifying when to use this over lists_create_segment. The schema covers parameter details, but the overall context is not fully complete.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'saved or static' which maps to the options and static_segment parameters, but the schema already provides richer descriptions. The description adds little value beyond what the schema defines.
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 action 'Create a new saved or static segment for a list' with a specific resource and type. It distinguishes from update/delete/get tools but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling mailchimp_lists_create_segment, which appears to serve the same purpose.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor about choosing saved vs static segments. It only implies that the tool creates segments; there is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get information', which implies a read operation but does not disclose any potential required permissions, return format, or other behavioral specifics such as rate limits or error conditions.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It effectively communicates the core purpose without any fluff or redundancy.
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?
For a simple get operation with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally viable. However, it does not hint at what specific information is returned or provide any context about the relationship between workflow and email, which could help an agent anticipate the response.
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?
The schema already describes both parameters (workflow_id and email_id) with clear names and descriptions, giving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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' and the resource 'specific automation email', making the action and target unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like mailchimp_automations_list_emails or mailchimp_automations_get, which also deal with automation emails.
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 lacks any context about selecting this over mailchimp_automations_list_emails (for multiple emails) or mailchimp_automations_get (for the workflow itself), and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., campaign status), whether scheduling overwrites existing schedules, or how timezone is handled. The agent is left guessing about side effects.
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 a single, concise sentence with no fluff, front-loading the core action. It earns its place as a summary, though it is terse given the tool's complexity.
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?
For a tool with nested objects (batch_delivery) and timezone-related options (timewarp), the description is too sparse. It lacks information about expected return values, prerequisites, and relationships to sibling tools, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain the behavior of timewarp or batch_delivery, but the schema already describes them adequately.
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 action (schedule) and resource (campaign) with the key detail 'at a specific time'. This distinguishes it from siblings like mailchimp_campaigns_send (immediate send) and mailchimp_campaigns_unschedule.
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. It does not mention that 'send' sends immediately or that 'unschedule' cancels a scheduled send, leaving the agent without context for selecting this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Get information', which is a minimal restatement of the tool name and does not explain anything about response format, error handling, permissions, or potential side effects. Since no annotations exist, the lack of additional behavioral context is a significant gap.
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 concise sentence that immediately states the action and resource. There is no wasted verbiage or redundant information. It is appropriately sized for a simple get operation and front-loaded with the core purpose.
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?
For a simple read operation with two well-described parameters, a minimal description might be sufficient, but the absence of any mention of return structure, store context, or behavioral caveats leaves some ambiguity. The description lacks the rich contextual details that would make it fully self-sufficient, especially given the absence of annotations and output schema.
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?
The input schema covers 100% of parameters and provides descriptions for store_id and customer_id. The tool description does not add any further meaning beyond what the schema already offers. Given the high schema description coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific action ('Get') and resource ('customer'), and qualifies it as 'a specific customer', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list operations. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with other get operations or mention the store context, so it falls just short of fully differentiating from all siblings.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when to choose it over mailchimp_ecommerce_customers_list or the add/update/delete counterparts, nor does it state any prerequisites or edge cases. The intended usage is only implied by the tool name and parameters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only states the action without revealing pagination behavior, response format, or the fact that count/offset control the number of results. The word 'all' is ambiguous given the pagination parameters.
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 a single sentence with no wasted words, but it is minimal and lacks structure. It is efficient yet underinformative.
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?
For a listing tool with pagination parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not mention default behavior, limits, or how the response is structured.
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?
The schema descriptions already cover the meaning of all three parameters (count, offset, store_id). The description adds no supplementary semantic information, so a baseline score of 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the exact resource ('promo rules') scoped to a store. It distinguishes from the sibling tool for promo codes by specifying 'promo rules.'
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as promo_codes_list or other list operations. It lacks any mention of typical use cases or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It implies a read-only operation (getting information), but it does not mention what the return value looks like, whether errors are expected (e.g., page not found), or any other behavioral details such as rate limits or authentication requirements.
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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and resource. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it highly efficient for a simple get operation.
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?
For a simple get-by-ID tool with full parameter coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It communicates the core purpose and required input, but the lack of annotations, output schema, or usage guidance leaves some gaps in completeness, especially regarding expected output or error behavior.
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?
The input schema fully describes the only parameter (page_id as 'Landing page ID') with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.
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 action (get information) and resource (a specific landing page), making it distinct from list, create, update, delete, publish, and unpublish. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'mailchimp_landing_pages_get_content', which also retrieves landing page data, leaving potential ambiguity.
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. Given the sibling tools include get_content, list, and update, the description offers no context on when a simple 'get' is appropriate or what to use instead for content-specific retrieval.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get details' without explaining what details are included, the response format, or any permissions or side effects. This is minimal and leaves significant unknowns for a read operation.
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, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It is appropriately front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words, earning a perfect score.
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?
For a simple GET with one parameter and no output schema, the description is functional but minimal. It fails to elaborate on what 'details' means, which could be important for an agent deciding whether to use this tool, but the low complexity prevents a lower score.
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?
The schema already describes list_id as 'List ID' with 100% coverage, and the tool description adds no further meaning. It doesn't explain where to find the list_id or its format, but the schema provides sufficient baseline, so a middle score is appropriate.
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 retrieves details for a specific list/audience, using the verb 'get' and the resource 'list/audience'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mailchimp_lists_list (which lists all lists) and other list-specific tools, though 'details' is somewhat vague.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'specific list' implies an ID-based lookup, but it does not mention alternatives like listing all lists or accessing related resources, leaving the usage context ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention pagination, return format, rate limits, or any side effects. The phrase 'Get all' may be misleading given the count/offset parameters, but no clarification is offered.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no filler or redundancy. It is optimally concise.
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?
For a simple read tool, the description conveys the core purpose, but with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks details about return structure and pagination. The schema covers parameter definitions well, so the description is minimally viable but not comprehensive.
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?
The input schema already describes all parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning, only confirming that 'specific interest category' maps to category_id. It does not explain count/offset beyond the 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 action (Get) and the resource (interests/group names) within a specific interest category. It is specific enough to distinguish from the sibling tool 'mailchimp_lists_get_interest_categories', though it does not explicitly call out that distinction.
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, nor does it mention prerequisites or any exclusion criteria. The only implied usage is that a list_id and category_id are needed, but there is no explicit context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 disclosing behavior. It only states a 'get' operation, implying a read-only action, but does not describe what the returned report contains, any authentication requirements, or whether it returns paginated data or a single object.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It immediately conveys the core action and object, making it appropriately concise for such a simple tool.
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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It does not explain what a 'detailed campaign report' includes or how this tool differs from other report retrieval tools, leaving the agent to infer the return structure and scope.
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?
The schema already describes the only parameter ('Campaign ID') with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no extra meaning to the parameter, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without further elaboration.
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 identifies the action ('Get') and the resource ('detailed campaign report'), making it easy to understand the basic purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like mailchimp_reports_get_click_details or mailchimp_reports_list, so it lacks full sibling distinction.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this retrieves a single campaign's report, as opposed to listing reports or retrieving specific sub-reports. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about the time granularity ('month-by-month') and data points ('subscriptions and unsubscriptions'), but does not disclose pagination behavior, sorting defaults, permission requirements, or return structure. For a read operation, this is minimal but acceptable.
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 sentence that is concise, direct, and front-loaded. It communicates the core purpose without waste or redundancy.
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?
Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and a closely named sibling tool, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the relationship between 'list_id' and 'audience', does not mention sort options or pagination, and leaves the response structure vague. The ambiguity with 'mailchimp_lists_get_growth_history' further underscores the need for more context.
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?
The input schema covers all five parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the schema already explains the parameters. The description adds no additional parameter context, such as how 'list_id' maps to 'audience' or how count/offset affect results. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 action ('Get') and the resource ('growth history for an audience'), and adds specificity by mentioning 'subscriptions and unsubscriptions'. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'mailchimp_lists_get_growth_history', which appears to serve the same purpose, so it lacks explicit sibling discrimination.
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, such as 'mailchimp_lists_get_growth_history' or 'mailchimp_audiences_get_stats'. There are no usage scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states a read action ('Get all') but does not disclose pagination behavior, return format, or that it is a read-only operation. Minimal behavioral context.
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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource clearly.
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?
Given 7 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides minimal context. It does not explain pagination, return shape, or how filters relate to the operation. An agent would lack guidance beyond the schema.
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 100%, with each parameter having a descriptive label. The description adds no additional parameter detail, but the baseline is 3 given the high schema coverage.
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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'all automations', with a parenthetical clarification 'classic automations/workflows'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mailchimp_automations_get (singular) and actions like pause/start.
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. The name suggests a list operation, but the description does not explicitly note that a single automation retrieval would use mailchimp_automations_get or that specific filters might be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral details but does not. It does not mention that setting content overwrites existing content, requires a draft campaign, or that template-based content has nested requirements. The single verb 'set' implies mutation but no further transparency.
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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the action and lists content types. There is no redundancy or filler.
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?
Despite a nested template object and no output schema, the description provides no guidance on selecting among content sources, template section usage, or expected outcomes. It is minimal and leaves operational ambiguity for a tool with multiple input branches.
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 coverage is 100% for parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description merely echoes the parameter types already documented in the schema, adding no extra semantics like mutual exclusivity or required combination behavior.
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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Set the content') and explicitly lists the four content types (HTML, plain text, template, URL). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_content (which retrieves) and campaign update (which alters settings).
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, such as needing an existing campaign_id, using this after campaign creation, or the fact that only one content source should be specified. The description lacks any exclusions or conditional context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 does not mention pagination behavior despite the count and offset parameters, nor does it clarify that 'all customers' may actually be a paginated list. It also lacks any notes about authentication, rate limits, or the shape of the response.
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, focused sentence that immediately communicates the core purpose. No unnecessary words or filler.
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?
For a list tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to mention pagination, filtering via email_address, or the fact that store_id is required (though the schema indicates this). The agent may not correctly understand how to retrieve all customers or whether the result is a single page or complete list.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain how count/offset affect the list or how email_address filters results. It only reinforces store_id implicitly.
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 'Get all customers for a store' clearly states the action (get), the resource (customers), and the scope (for a specific store). It distinguishes from sibling tools like mailchimp_ecommerce_customers_get, which implies fetching a single customer, and from add/update/delete 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that for a single customer you would use mailchimp_ecommerce_customers_get, or that modifications use add/update/delete. The usage is only implied by the tool name and context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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. It does not disclose important behaviors like uniqueness of product ID, idempotency, duplicates, or the requirement that the store_id reference an existing store. The single sentence adds no behavioral detail beyond the action itself.
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 sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no unnecessary words or repetition. It is concise and to the point.
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?
Even though the schema covers parameters, the description is contextually incomplete for a 10-parameter create operation. It omits prerequisites (e.g., store existence), uniqueness or idempotency constraints, and any error or response expectations. The agent lacks critical context to use the tool safely and correctly.
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?
The input schema covers 100% of the 10 parameters with individual descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema already provides adequate field-level documentation.
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 'Add a new product to a store' uses a specific verb (Add) with a clear resource (product) and scope (store), distinguishing it from sibling tools like products_update, products_delete, and stores_add. It directly states the action and target.
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, nor any mention of prerequisites such as the store needing to exist. The description only states the action without context on eligibility or exclusion conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only that a store is deleted, but does not reveal irreversible consequences, potential cascading effects on related resources (e.g., products, orders), permission requirements, or what the response indicates. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.
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 extremely concise, consisting of a single four-word sentence. Every word contributes to the meaning, and it is appropriately sized for a simple delete operation. There is no wasted text or redundant information.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete in that it identifies the action. However, it lacks essential context about deletion side effects, irreversibility, or success/failure semantics. For a destructive operation, this incompleteness is a notable flaw.
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?
The input schema already provides a 100% description coverage for the single parameter `store_id` ('Store ID to delete'). The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema states, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 'Delete a store' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing the action from other store operations like add, update, or list. It is concise and unambiguous, matching or exceeding the clarity of the high-scoring example 'List ALL calls in date range'.
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. There is no mention of prerequisites, consequences, or situations where deletion is appropriate or inappropriate, nor any reference to sibling tools or alternative approaches.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'Unpublish a landing page.' It omits side effects (e.g., page becomes inaccessible), reversibility via publish, or any authorization requirements. This is insufficient 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?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the core action, and contains zero waste. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool.
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?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what happens after unpublishing, whether the operation is reversible, or any workflow context. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.
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 100%, with the parameter 'page_id' fully described. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, hence the baseline score of 3.
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 'Unpublish a landing page' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like publish, update, and delete. It leaves no ambiguity about the action performed.
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, no prerequisites, and no mention of related tools like publish. It merely states the action without context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Delete a segment' and adds no information about irreversibility, required permissions, side effects (e.g., deletion of members), or response behavior. This goes little beyond the verb itself.
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 one short sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place. For a simple deletion operation, this is appropriately concise and well-structured.
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 description is incomplete for a mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations. It does not explain what happens after deletion, whether the action is permanent, possible side effects, or error conditions. The agent is left with uncertainties about the tool's full behavior.
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?
The input schema provides full descriptions for both parameters ('List ID' and 'Segment ID to delete'), giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter information, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 'Delete a segment' clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (segment), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling segment tools like create, update, and get. While the list context is not explicit in the description, the tool name and required parameters make the scope unambiguous.
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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, any prerequisites, or cautionary notes. It is purely declarative with no context on selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the purpose and gives no information about the nature of the activity (e.g., opens, clicks), read-only status, permissions, or response format. This is a minimal disclosure that leaves the agent guessing about the tool's 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 a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word serves the purpose, with zero wasted verbiage.
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?
Despite having only 2 parameters, the lack of annotations and output schema means the description must explain what 'activity' means and what the caller can expect. It does neither, leaving significant ambiguity about the tool's output and scope.
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 100% and both parameters are described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but since the schema already documents campaign_id and email_address, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 action ('Get'), the resource ('activity'), and the scope ('for a specific subscriber in a campaign'), which matches the tool name precisely. It is specific enough to distinguish from broader report tools like mailchimp_reports_get and member-level activity tools.
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 such as mailchimp_reports_get_open_details or mailchimp_members_get_activity. The description implies a specific use case but does not state exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description adds no context about return format, error handling, authentication requirements, or side effects. It does not even clarify whether the content is HTML, text, or a structure. This is minimal disclosure.
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 concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. Every word is informative and there is no redundancy or fluff. For a simple one-parameter getter, this is appropriately sized and front-loaded.
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?
Given that there is no output schema, the description does not explain what the returned content looks like. It also does not distinguish itself from the existing sibling mailchimp_templates_get. For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context about the return value and usage scenarios. The tool name is descriptive, but the description alone leaves the agent with incomplete information.
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?
The schema already covers the parameter with 'Template ID' (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides. It simply implies that template_id identifies the template whose default content is retrieved, which is already evident.
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 'Get the default content for a template' clearly states the action (get), the resource (template), and the specific aspect (default content). This distinguishes it from siblings like mailchimp_templates_get (which likely gets template metadata) and mailchimp_campaigns_get_content (which gets campaign content). The verb+resource phrasing is precise.
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. It does not mention when to use it instead of mailchimp_templates_get or mailchimp_campaigns_get_content, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The description only states what it does, not the context in which it should be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Delete a webhook' and does not mention that deletion is permanent, irreversible, or that it may have downstream effects on webhook events. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.
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, direct phrase with zero unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a simple delete operation and is front-loaded with the core action.
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?
While the tool is simple and the schema covers parameters, the description lacks any behavioral context such as permanence, error handling, or prerequisites. With no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse to be considered complete for an agent deciding whether to invoke it.
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 100%, with both list_id and webhook_id clearly described. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the baseline of 3 applies since the schema fully documents the parameters.
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 'Delete a webhook' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like webhook_create or webhook_update. It unambiguously states the tool's function.
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, prerequisites, or alternatives. The description simply states the action without contextualizing it relative to other webhook operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states the action without detailing side effects, idempotency, duplicate handling, or required states (e.g., active workflow). This is insufficient 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?
The description is one short, clear sentence with no extraneous information, making it easy to parse.
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?
The tool is simple with three parameters and no output schema, but the description omits potentially important context such as duplicate handling, whether the workflow must be active, or the outcome of the operation. Still, it covers the core function.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters; the schema already describes them adequately.
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 uses a specific verb ('add') and clearly specifies the resource ('subscriber' to an 'automation email queue'), distinguishing this from sibling tools like listing or pausing the queue.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives; it doesn't mention any prerequisites or when a manual addition is appropriate, nor does it reference the sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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. It does not disclose that this is a read-only operation, any pagination behavior, or the structure of the returned data. The phrase 'Get all' suggests a complete list but does not clarify limits or additional API call requirements. This is a minimal disclosure with no extra behavioral context.
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, front-loaded sentence that concisely states the action and scope. Every word is necessary, and it is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter list tool.
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?
For a simple list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description gives the essential purpose. However, it lacks context about return format, pagination, or any filtering capabilities. It is minimally viable but leaves room for uncertainty about the API response. Given the low complexity, a score of 3 is fair.
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 100%: the only parameter 'workflow_id' is described as 'Automation workflow ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but since the schema fully documents the parameter, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb+resource combination ('Get all emails in an automation workflow') and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'mailchimp_automations_get_email' (single email) and 'mailchimp_automations_list' (list workflows). The scope is unambiguous.
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. Given the many sibling automation tools, it would be helpful to mention that this is for listing emails within a workflow, while 'get_email' is for a single email or 'list_queue' for queued emails. The usage context is only implied, with no exclusions or alternatives mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 action but does not disclose side effects (e.g., sending emails to subscribers), reversibility, permission requirements, or behavior if the workflow is already active. This is a significant gap for a mutating operation.
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, focused sentence with no filler. It conveys the essential action and resource succinctly, earning every word's place.
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?
For a simple one-parameter tool, the description is minimally adequate. However, the lack of behavioral context (what 'start all emails' actually does, any irreversible effects) and the absence of annotations means it does not fully prepare the agent for invocation. Yet the full schema coverage and simple scope prevent a lower score.
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?
The input schema fully documents workflow_id with a description ('Automation workflow ID to start'), providing 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 verb 'Start' and the resource 'all emails in an automation workflow', making it distinct from sibling tools like mailchimp_automations_start_email (which starts a single email) and mailchimp_automations_pause (which pauses the workflow). The scope is specific and unambiguous.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when starting an automation is appropriate, or contrast with start_email or pause. The description is purely functional and lacks contextual usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Start' without describing the consequences, prerequisites, or reversibility. The agent has no information about what starting an automation email actually does, whether it sends immediately, or what side effects occur.
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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and resource, making it easy to scan. This is an appropriate size for a simple tool.
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?
The tool is simple with two well-described parameters, but the description lacks any context about side effects, required workflow state, or how it fits with sibling tools. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, a moderate amount of additional context would be beneficial, but the essential operation is conveyed.
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 100%, with both parameters already described clearly ('Automation email ID to start' and 'Automation workflow ID'). The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 'Start a specific automation email' clearly states the action (start) and the resource (specific automation email), with the word 'specific' distinguishing it from starting an entire workflow. This is unambiguous and aligns with the tool name, differentiating it from sibling tools like mailchimp_automations_start.
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 such as mailchimp_automations_start or mailchimp_automations_pause_email. No prerequisites, context, or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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. 'Review' implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly confirm it, nor does it disclose what the checklist contains, whether the campaign must exist, or any side effects. Minimal behavioral disclosure.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It states exactly what the tool does without wasting words.
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?
For a simple one-parameter read tool, the description covers the core action but omits useful context like what the checklist includes, the response format (no output schema exists), and any prerequisites (e.g., campaign must exist). Adequate but not comprehensive.
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 coverage is 100% for the single required parameter 'campaign_id', which the schema already describes as 'Campaign ID'. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 states a specific action ('review') on a specific resource ('pre-send checklist') scoped to 'a campaign'. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_content or get by focusing on the checklist, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied: use this tool to review a campaign's pre-send checklist. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it vs. alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The context is clear enough for a simple getter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List all campaigns' which implies a read operation, but gives no details about pagination, response shape, default sorting, or any side effects. The addition of 'optional filters' is minimal and does not enrich the agent's understanding beyond the tool name.
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?
A single, clear sentence that immediately states the action and scope. No filler words or redundant details. Perfectly front-loaded and concise.
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?
For a list tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It clearly identifies the operation but does not describe what the returned data contains (e.g., campaign summaries, pagination info) or any constraints beyond the schema. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is not fully complete but is not severely deficient.
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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so all 8 parameters are already documented with descriptions. The description's 'optional filters' is a generic phrase that does not add specific parameter insights. With full schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('campaigns') with clear scope ('all campaigns in your Mailchimp account'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get' (single campaign) and 'search_campaigns' (search functionality).
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 does not mention when to use mailchimp_campaigns_get for a single campaign or mailchimp_search_campaigns for search. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 does not mention what happens when a campaign is paused (e.g., whether scheduled sends are canceled, if it is reversible, or if there are state requirements). The single word 'pause' conveys little beyond the obvious.
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 five-word sentence, extremely concise and front-loaded with the action. There is zero redundant information, and every word earns its place.
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?
The tool has a simple signature with one parameter and no output schema, so the description is mostly adequate for invocation. However, it lacks behavioral context about the effects of pausing, which is important for a mutation tool. Given the simplicity, a middle score is warranted.
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?
The input schema already describes campaign_id as 'RSS campaign ID to pause', which fully covers the parameter semantics. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema states, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 action (pause) and the resource (RSS campaign), making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like mailchimp_campaigns_resume or mailchimp_campaigns_send. The specificity to RSS campaigns further clarifies the intended target.
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 such as mailchimp_campaigns_resume or mailchimp_campaigns_delete. It simply states the action without context on prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation through 'Get' but provides no details on response format, error behavior, or rate limits. It is minimally transparent but lacks richness for a tool that could benefit from describing what information is returned.
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 concise sentence with no redundant words. It is efficient and appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, earning a perfect score for conciseness.
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?
For a simple two-parameter get tool, the description is minimally adequate but leaves notable gaps: it does not state what information is returned, that the order is scoped to a store, or how it differs from list/get siblings. The absence of an output schema increases the need for a richer description, resulting in a score of 3.
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?
The input schema already provides 100% coverage for both store_id and order_id with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 action ('Get') and the target ('a specific order'), which distinguishes it from list (all orders) and mutation tools. However, it doesn't explicitly mention that it is scoped to an ecommerce store or that both store_id and order_id are required, relying on the tool name and schema to convey this.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mailchimp_ecommerce_orders_list or mailchimp_ecommerce_orders_get. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or any exclusions, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Delete a product' clearly indicates a destructive operation, but it does not disclose irreversibility, side effects, or required permissions. The absence of any additional behavioral context leaves significant gaps 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?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core purpose.
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?
For a simple delete operation with two fully documented parameters, the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks any operational context such as whether the deletion is permanent, affects related resources, or requires specific data to have been fetched first. The completeness relies entirely on the clear schema and obvious action.
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?
The input schema provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters ('Store ID' and 'Product ID to delete'). The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already specifies, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 'Delete a product' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling product operations like list, get, add, and update. It is unambiguous and directly states the tool's function.
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, such as when deleting a product versus a cart or customer. It lacks context about prerequisites, effects, or exclusions, offering only the bare action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not explain pagination behavior (despite count/offset parameters), return format, or potential errors. 'Get all products' could mislead an agent into thinking it returns an unbounded list.
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, focused sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. No filler or redundant information, making it highly concise and appropriately structured.
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?
For a simple list tool with only 3 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a basic understanding but leaves gaps: no mention of pagination behavior, no clarification that 'all products' is subject to count/offset, and no usage context. It is adequate but not complete.
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?
The input schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about how count/offset affect the result, but the schema sufficiently covers the parameter semantics.
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 'Get all products for a store' uses a specific verb (Get), names the resource (products), and scopes it to a store, clearly distinguishing it from the sibling 'get' tool that retrieves a single product. This satisfies the requirement for a specific verb+resource+scope.
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 list endpoint versus the 'get' variant, nor does it mention any prerequisites or alternatives. It simply states the action without context about use cases or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it merely restates what the tool does ('Get information') without revealing any additional behavioral traits such as error handling, authentication requirements, rate limits, or the structure of the returned data. It adds no value beyond the tool name and schema.
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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It effectively conveys the tool's purpose in a direct manner, achieving maximum conciseness without sacrificing clarity.
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?
For a simple get operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details about what 'information' is returned, potential errors (e.g., store not found), or any preconditions. The absence of annotations and output schema means the description should provide more context, but given the tool's low complexity, a score of 3 reflects a basic but incompletely specified tool.
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?
The schema description coverage is 100% (store_id is described as 'Store ID'), so the schema already documents the parameter. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what is already provided, such as format, constraints, or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the parameter is fully documented in the schema.
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 identifies the action ('Get') and the specific resource ('information about a specific store'). It distinctively targets a single e-commerce store, differentiating it from list operations like mailchimp_ecommerce_stores_list and other get operations on different resources (products, orders, etc.).
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 does not mention that this is for retrieving a single store's details, nor does it suggest using list for multiple stores or update/delete for modifications. No exclusions or alternatives are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the operation is a permanent deletion, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not elaborate on irreversibility, permissions, or downstream effects, leaving some gaps.
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 sentence, to the point, and free of unnecessary detail. Every word contributes to the meaning.
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?
For a simple two-parameter delete operation, the description covers the core action. However, it lacks clarification on how this archive operation differs from mailchimp_members_delete and offers no context about expected outcomes, which could confuse 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 coverage is 100%, with both list_id and email_address already described. The description does not add additional semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 action (delete) and the resource (a member from a list), with 'permanently' and 'archive' adding scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool mailchimp_members_delete, which likely also performs a deletion.
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 other member operations. There is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or how archiving differs from deleting in Mailchimp.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention pagination (count/offset), default filters, response format, or that 'all' members may be limited by filters. This lack of detail is a significant gap for a tool with 11 parameters.
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 a single, clear sentence with no waste. It is appropriately concise for a simple list operation, though it could be slightly more informative without losing efficiency.
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?
Given the complexity of 11 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to mention the available filters (status, vip_only, sort, date ranges) or how pagination works. The phrase 'all members' is misleading since filters and pagination can limit results.
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 coverage is 100%, with every parameter having a description, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but the schema already explains each parameter adequately.
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 action (Get), the resource (members/subscribers), and the scope (in a list). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like mailchimp_members_get (single member) and mailchimp_lists_list (list metadata).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for listing members but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like mailchimp_search_members. No exclusions or alternative references are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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. It only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits like read-only nature, pagination behavior, or response format. For a search tool, this is a significant gap.
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, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word is purposeful and there is no redundancy or filler.
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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal. It covers the core search capability but omits details like result format, default pagination, or how search differs from listing members. The schema covers parameter meanings, making it minimally adequate.
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?
All four parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, leaving the query, count, offset, and list_id explanations entirely to the 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 uses a specific verb ('Search') with a resource ('members') and states the scope ('across all lists or a specific list'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like mailchimp_members_list, though it does not explicitly name that alternative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies a search use case across lists but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mailchimp_members_list or mailchimp_search_campaigns. There is no mention of exclusions or conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the basic function and omits behavioral details such as return format, pagination, partial-match behavior (though noted in schema), or any side effects. There is no contradiction, but the information is sparse.
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?
A single sentence with no filler. The action is front-loaded and the description is appropriately sized for a simple search tool.
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?
With two fully described parameters and a straightforward purpose, the description is minimally adequate. However, the absence of an output schema and behavioral notes (e.g., return type, sorting, limits) leaves clear 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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, only reiterating the 'by name' aspect.
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 action ('Search'), the resource ('tags'), and the scope ('on a list by name'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like mailchimp_members_get_tags, which targets tags on a member rather than a list.
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. There are no mentions of exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the bare description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only mentions the action and the 500-member limit, but does not reveal side effects (e.g., partial success handling), whether existing members are updated by default, or what the response contains. This is a significant transparency gap 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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes a key constraint (500 members). Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy.
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 full parameter schema and the absence of an output schema, the description provides the minimum viable information: what the tool does and its main limit. However, it omits important contextual details such as error handling, partial success behavior, or prerequisites, which would be valuable for a batch mutation operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers all parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by stating the batch limit (up to 500) and clarifying that each member can be subscribed or updated, which enriches the interpretation of the 'members' array without contradicting the 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?
Description specifies a clear action (batch subscribe or update) on a resource (members) with a scope (up to 500 members), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the closely named sibling 'mailchimp_lists_batch_subscribe', which serves the same core purpose, so it lacks clear sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for batch operations on up to 500 members but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like single-member add/update or the analogous 'lists_batch_subscribe'. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action without revealing that emails are actually delivered to the provided addresses, that the campaign's send status is unaffected, or any rate limits or state prerequisites. This is a significant gap for a tool that sends emails.
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, focused sentence that clearly communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is concise and front-loaded, earning its place entirely.
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?
For a tool with three required parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain what happens on success, side effects (e.g., sending emails), or clarify that test emails are only sent to the provided addresses. The schema's max 5 emails is not reiterated, and there's no differentiation from similar tools beyond the name.
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?
The input schema already describes all three parameters (send_type, campaign_id, test_emails) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 action ('Send a test email') and the resource ('for a campaign'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like mailchimp_campaigns_send, which likely sends to all recipients. The word 'test' makes the specific purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The word 'test' implies the use case (testing rather than final send), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like campaign_send. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or relationship to other campaign actions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get all orders', omitting pagination behavior, default count/offset semantics, filtering by campaign/customer, and any safety or authorization context. The term 'all' is also potentially misleading given count/offset parameters.
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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant or filler words. Every word communicates essential scope, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
For a list tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It fails to mention pagination semantics, optional filters (campaign_id, customer_id), or the shape of the response, leaving the agent with insufficient context for correct invocation.
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 100%, with each parameter having a basic description. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond matching 'a store' to store_id, so it meets the baseline but doesn't enrich understanding.
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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'orders' with the scope 'for a store'. This distinguishes it from more specific sibling tools like mailchimp_ecommerce_orders_get, which likely retrieves a single order.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage—when you need all orders for a store—but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. It is a minimal context with no comparative direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Get') and the result ('HTML content') without detailing return format, potential errors, authentication requirements, or whether the output includes full page styling or just the body. This adds minimal behavioral context beyond the tool's purpose.
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 that front-loads the verb and the object. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it appropriately concise for a tool with one parameter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description provides enough context for a basic invocation: it identifies the resource and the expected output. However, it lacks detail about the response structure (e.g., whether HTML is returned as a string, includes CSS, or has encoding considerations), which would be helpful but not critical for this simple getter.
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?
The input schema has 100% coverage: page_id is described as 'Landing page ID'. The description adds no further parameter semantics. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the schema already provides sufficient parameter meaning.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('HTML content for a landing page'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool mailchimp_landing_pages_get (which likely returns landing page metadata) and mailchimp_campaigns_get_content (which targets campaigns, not landing pages).
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 does not mention that mailchimp_landing_pages_get should be used for non-content metadata, nor does it explain when content retrieval is appropriate. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only restates the tool's purpose and adds the term 'upsert,' which adds no new behavioral detail. It does not explain how existing members are matched, whether updates are partial, or how status_if_new applies to new vs. existing members.
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, direct sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the core action and is appropriately brief for the tool's purpose.
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 7 parameters including nested objects, yet the description provides no information about return values, error handling, or how the upsert is determined. It also doesn't clarify whether updates are partial or which fields apply only to new members, leaving significant gaps for a complex operation.
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?
The schema provides full descriptions for all 7 parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already offers. Baseline score applies.
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: adding or updating a member (upsert). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mailchimp_members_add and mailchimp_members_update by covering both operations in one call.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool (upsert scenario) but does not explicitly contrast it with mailchimp_members_add or mailchimp_members_update. It lacks exclusions or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent to infer the decision.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core mutation (add/remove) without mentioning side effects like whether members must already be on the list, how duplicates are handled, whether the operation is atomic, or what the response looks like. This is a significant gap 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?
The description is a single 8-word sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail; every word contributes to the core meaning.
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?
Despite complete schema coverage, the tool has no output schema and no annotations. The description is too terse to convey essential behavioral context: what a successful batch operation returns, error conditions (e.g., invalid segment type), or whether both arrays can be used simultaneously. It is minimally viable but lacks critical operating assumptions for an agent to use it reliably.
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?
All four parameters have descriptions in the schema, providing 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond the schema; it merely indicates the batch nature. It does not clarify relationships between parameters or expected email formats beyond what schema descriptions already state.
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 states a clear action ('Batch add or remove') on a specific resource ('members from a segment'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like mailchimp_members_add (single add) and mailchimp_lists_batch_subscribe (list subscription, not segment membership).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for batch modification of segment memberships, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives such as mailchimp_members_add/remove or batch subscribe. No exclusionary conditions or alternative tool names are provided, leaving usage guidance to be inferred from the name and context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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. It only says 'get information' without disclosing behavior like return format, required permissions, potential errors, or that it's a read-only operation. The verb implies reading but doesn't explicitly assure safety or explain edge cases.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It's an efficient and clear one-liner, though slightly under-specified for a full behavioral picture.
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?
For a simple get operation with 2 well-documented parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema or annotations, it doesn't explain what information will be returned or what makes this different from other member getters, leaving some gaps.
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?
The schema covers 100% of parameter descriptions (list_id and email_address), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, such as clarifying that email_address must belong to the given list or that these are required.
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 'Get information about a specific list member' uses a specific verb (get) and resource (list member), making it clear this retrieves a single member's details. It distinguishes well from sibling tools like mailchimp_members_list (list all) and mailchimp_members_add/update/delete.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by the singular 'specific list member' but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. It offers no guidance on choosing between this and other member-related getters like get_activity or get_goals.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only says 'recent activity' without explaining what qualifies as recent, what activity types are included, or the return format. This leaves significant ambiguity for an agent.
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 unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity and front-loads the core purpose.
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 no output schema and no annotations, so the description should compensate by explaining what activity records look like or any limitations (e.g., pagination, time windows). This is missing, leaving the description inadequate for a complete understanding.
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 100%, so all parameters (count, offset, list_id, email_address) are already documented. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 ('Get') and resource ('recent activity for a specific list member'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like mailchimp_members_get (member details) and mailchimp_members_get_goals (goals).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by naming the specific resource, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. An agent might infer it for member activity tracking, but no explicit guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the operation, without disclosing side effects, authentication needs, error conditions (e.g., duplicate tag), or return behavior. For a mutable create operation, this is a significant gap.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, zero filler. It is concise and to the point.
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?
Despite rich schema, the description is minimal. No output schema exists, yet the description does not mention what is returned (e.g., the created merge field object). The tool has 10 parameters with nested options, but the description lacks behavioral context and postcondition details.
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 100%, so the schema documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond the schema, thus the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 action ('Create a new merge field') and the resource ('a list'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like mailchimp_merge_fields_update and mailchimp_merge_fields_delete.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for creating a merge field on a list but provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. Sibling names offer context, but the description itself gives no guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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. It only restates the read operation without adding details about response format, error handling, or permissions. This offers minimal behavioral transparency beyond what the tool name already implies.
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 one short sentence with no redundant wording. It is appropriately concise, though it provides limited information, which is acceptable for a simple getter.
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?
The tool is simple with two well-documented parameters, so the description is adequate. However, without an output schema or additional context about the return value, the agent must infer the response structure.
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 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description merely says 'by ID' without adding extra semantic meaning, so it does not improve upon the schema.
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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'merge field' with a specific identifier ('by ID'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list, create, and delete.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for fetching a single merge field when the ID is known, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. The context is understandable but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the update action but omits any details about side effects, partial update semantics, required permissions, or how it interacts with existing subscriber data. This is a significant gap 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?
The description is a single, focused sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose without extraneous information. It is well structured and easy to parse, earning full marks for conciseness.
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?
Despite having 10 parameters and a nested object, the description is extremely sparse. It does not mention required parameters, update semantics, or expected outcomes. With no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient to fully guide an agent on how to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.
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?
The input schema provides comprehensive descriptions for all parameters, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no parameter information beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate. It neither enriches nor detracts from the schema.
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 action ('Update') and the resource ('existing merge field'), which is specific and unambiguous. It effectively distinguishes this tool from its sibling operations like create, delete, get, and list for merge fields.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: use this tool when you need to modify an existing merge field. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear only through the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the read action and does not disclose return format, potential errors, required permissions, pagination, or any other behavioral traits. This is a significant gap for a tool with no output schema.
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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose and earns its place without unnecessary elaboration.
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?
Despite having complete schema coverage for parameters, the description lacks contextual completeness. There is no output schema, yet the description does not explain what 'click details' includes or how the response is structured. Additionally, it does not clarify the distinction from the sibling tool mailchimp_reports_get_click_details, leaving the agent uncertain about which to use.
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?
The input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (campaign_id and link_id). The description does not add any extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema offers, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 action ('Get'), the resource ('click details'), and the scope ('for a specific link in a campaign'). It distinguishes from vague alternatives by specifying a single link, which aligns with the link_id parameter and differentiates it from the sibling get_click_details (plural) tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context (retrieving click data for one link) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mailchimp_reports_get_click_details or mailchimp_reports_get_open_details. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It does not mention response format, pagination, or error conditions, and the word 'all' may inaccurately imply a single complete list rather than a paginated result. This leaves the agent with incomplete behavioral expectations.
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, tightly-worded sentence that front-loads the action and object. It contains no fluff, redundancy, or extraneous detail, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
For a tool with two simple parameters and no output schema, the description gives the core purpose but omits any indication of the response structure or usage constraints. It is minimally sufficient but leaves ambiguity about what a caller should expect, especially regarding result size or formatting.
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?
The input schema already provides clear descriptions for both required parameters (workflow_id and email_id), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('all subscribers in the queue for an automation email'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like mailchimp_automations_add_to_queue or mailchimp_automations_list. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately understood.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies its use for reading the queue of an automation email, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives. Since no sibling tool directly lists queue subscribers, the usage context is inferred rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without explaining what happens to the campaign after unscheduling (e.g., reverting to draft, whether the scheduled send is permanently canceled, or if the operation is reversible). This minimal disclosure is insufficient 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?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the essential action and object efficiently, earning full marks for conciseness and structure.
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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally sufficient, but it lacks context about the campaign's state transition or prerequisites. It does not explain what 'unschedule' entails beyond the action itself, making it adequate but with clear gaps in completeness.
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?
The schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'campaign_id' with its description 'Campaign ID'. The tool description adds no additional parameter context beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 uses the specific verb 'unschedule' with the resource 'campaign', clearly indicating the action of canceling a scheduled campaign. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'mailchimp_campaigns_schedule' and 'mailchimp_campaigns_send' by the explicit 'unschedule' action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the campaign must be currently scheduled, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'pause' or 'resume'. There are no stated exclusions or alternative recommendations, so usage is only implied rather than clearly directed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 adds the clarification that carts are abandoned carts, but fails to mention that this is a read-only operation or any potential side effects. The name implies read-only, but the description does not explicitly state it.
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 redundant wording. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation and front-loads the key information.
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?
The description tells the agent what the tool does but not what the response contains or whether any filters apply beyond store_id. Given the absence of an output schema, some return-format information would improve completeness, but the schema covers inputs and the operation is straightforward.
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 coverage is 100%, with all three parameters (count, offset, store_id) having descriptions. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 identifies the tool as a list operation for ecommerce carts, specifying that 'carts' refers to abandoned carts. The verb 'Get all' and resource 'carts' distinguish it from single-cart retrieval tools like mailchimp_ecommerce_carts_get.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are provided, but the implied usage is clear from the verb and resource. The description does not compare with related tools or mention exclusions, so it relies on the agent inferring usage from the tool name and context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Get all e-commerce stores' without explaining pagination behavior, ordering, default count limits, or any required account setup. The read-only nature is only implied by 'Get'.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word contributes to the meaning, with no filler or redundant information.
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?
For a simple list operation with two optional pagination parameters, the description provides the core purpose. However, it does not mention response format or default pagination limits, which could be important given the absence of an output schema. Still, the tool is relatively simple, so this is minimally adequate.
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 coverage is 100% because both count and offset have descriptions ('Number of records to return' and 'Number of records to skip'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 retrieves all e-commerce stores connected to the account, using the verb 'Get' and specific resource 'e-commerce stores'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ecommerce_stores_get (single store) and ecommerce_stores_add/update/delete (mutations).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'Get all' implies this tool is for listing multiple stores, contrasting with tools that fetch a single store or modify stores. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this instead of other list tools (e.g., products_list, orders_list) or provide exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It discloses that the deletion is permanent and affects all members, which is critical context. However, it omits other potential side effects (e.g., deletion of associated segments, automation triggers) and any permission requirements, leaving the agent with partial transparency.
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, compact sentence that directly states the action and its primary consequence. Every word is necessary, and the key information is front-loaded ('Permanently delete').
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?
For a minimal delete tool, the description covers the core functionality but lacks context about return values, restrictions, or cascading consequences beyond members. It does not explain what happens to related resources, so the agent may not fully understand the tool's impact. The absence of an output schema and annotations increases the burden, but the simplicity of the tool keeps it at a passable level.
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?
The schema provides 100% coverage of the single parameter, 'list_id' with the description 'List ID to delete', which is sufficient. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 'Permanently delete a list and all its members' clearly states the action (permanently delete), the resource (a list), and the scope (including members). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mailchimp_lists_delete_segment and mailchimp_members_delete, which target different resources.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when not to use it (e.g., if only removing a segment) or any prerequisites. The description simply asserts the action, leaving usage decisions to the agent without additional context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden, but it only says 'Get all merge fields' and does not disclose pagination behavior, default count, or return format. The presence of 'count' and 'offset' in the schema suggests pagination, but the description doesn't clarify that 'all' is subject to these limits.
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, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous wording. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and parenthetical clarification.
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?
The tool has five parameters and no output schema, so the description should compensate for missing return/behavior details. It doesn't mention response structure, pagination, or filtering capabilities, though the schema covers parameters. Overall, it's minimally adequate for a list operation but lacks richness.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all five parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds contextual meaning by equating merge fields to custom fields and indicating the scope (list/audience), but it does not elaborate on parameter usage beyond what the schema already provides.
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 verb ('Get') and the resource ('all merge fields'), explicitly clarifying that merge fields are custom fields and scoping to 'a list/audience'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like merge_fields_get, which likely fetches a single merge field.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving all merge fields for a list/audience, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or differentiation from alternatives such as merge_fields_get or create. There is no mention of prerequisites or excluded scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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. It only restates the tool's purpose and does not disclose read-only nature, pagination behavior, return format, or any rate limits. Minimal value beyond the name.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core purpose and scope without waste. Perfectly concise for this simple tool.
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?
The tool is simple with fully covered parameters, but the description lacks explicit usage guidance vs. the similar sibling tool and does not mention behavioral details such as pagination or read-only status. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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 100%, with campaign_id, count, and offset each described. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline without enhancing parameter understanding.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('detailed click reports') with a clear scope ('all links in a campaign'). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'mailchimp_reports_get_click_detail', which likely handles a single link.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool (when needing click data for all campaign links) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. No direct reference to 'mailchimp_reports_get_click_detail' as the single-link counterpart.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' indicates a read-only operation, but no further context is given about response contents, error conditions, or permissions. It is minimally transparent but not misleading.
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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently states the tool's purpose.
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?
For a simple one-parameter get operation, the description plus schema provides a minimal viable tool definition. However, it lacks usage context and return-value expectations, leaving some ambiguity about what 'information' is returned.
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?
The single parameter template_id is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), and the description adds the qualifier 'specific template'. No additional parameter meaning is provided, so baseline 3 applies.
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 uses the verb 'Get' with the resource 'specific template', clearly indicating a single-template retrieval operation. This distinguishes it from mailchimp_templates_list, which would retrieve multiple templates.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mailchimp_templates_list or mailchimp_templates_get_default_content. The description does not mention exclusions or preferred use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of transparency. It appropriately indicates a read operation through 'Get' and lists the types of data returned, but it does not disclose any potential limitations like time periods or whether the stats are all-time or recent, nor does it mention required permissions.
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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or generic filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-parameter read tool, the description provides the essential information: what it does and the categories of data it returns. However, it does not describe the return format or any filters (e.g., date ranges), and the lack of alternative guidance makes it slightly incomplete for an agent navigating the many sibling tools.
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?
The input schema fully documents list_id with 'List/audience ID', so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 applies; the description does not repeat or enrich parameter details.
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 retrieves detailed statistics for a specific audience/list, enumerating subscriber counts, open/click rates, and growth data. The verb 'Get' and resource 'specific audience/list' make the purpose unmistakable, and the listed data types help distinguish it from simple list-getting tools.
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 related tools such as mailchimp_reports_get for campaign-specific stats or mailchimp_audiences_get_growth_history for growth-only data. The description only implies usage via the purpose, offering no exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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. The verb 'Get' indicates a read operation, but the description does not disclose potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or return format. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the operation type.
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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It directly states the action and target resource, earning a high score for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-resource get tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the purpose. However, it does not specify what information will be returned or any prerequisites beyond the workflow ID, leaving minor gaps for a simple operation.
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 100% with 'workflow_id' described as 'Automation workflow ID'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 'Get information about a specific automation workflow' uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('automation workflow') with 'specific' indicating retrieval by ID. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like mailchimp_automations_list which lists workflows.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving a single workflow by ID, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., list or other automation tools). There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tool recommendations, so usage context is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only restates the basic action without revealing side effects, reversibility, or permission requirements. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.
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 short sentence, front-loaded with the verb, and contains no superfluous words. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description adequately communicates the core function and scope. It does not explain return values or prerequisites, but these are less critical for such a simple operation, and the schema covers the parameter.
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 100% (workflow_id is described as 'Automation workflow ID to pause'), and the tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 applies.
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 action (pause) and the specific resource (all emails in an automation workflow), distinguishing it from siblings like pause_email which pauses a single email. The scope is explicit and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by saying 'all emails,' which contrasts with the sibling pause_email, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool vs alternatives. No exclusions or alternative references are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool retrieves content, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as permissions required, response format details, or any side effects. The verb 'Get' provides basic transparency but nothing more.
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 sentence with no unnecessary words. It directly states the action and the output, making it highly efficient and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns ('HTML and plain-text content'). It is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose, though it lacks usage guidance and behavioral context that would make it fully complete.
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?
The schema covers the only parameter (campaign_id) with a description 'Campaign ID', so schema_description_coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter semantics; it merely reiterates that the tool is for a campaign.
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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource ('a campaign') and the deliverable ('HTML and plain-text content'). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'mailchimp_campaigns_get' and 'mailchimp_campaigns_set_content'.
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. It does not mention that it is for retrieving content specifically, nor does it contrast with related tools such as 'mailchimp_campaigns_get' or 'mailchimp_campaigns_set_content'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a safe read operation, it does not describe return format, event types, pagination, or potential side effects, which is insufficient for anticipating tool 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately states the action and target resource, making it easy to consume.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read tool with two well-documented parameters, the description sufficiently conveys what the tool does and what it returns ('recent goal events'). No output schema exists, but the description gives enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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?
Input schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters and clearly explain list_id and email_address. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('recent goal events for a specific list member'). It is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like mailchimp_members_get_activity and mailchimp_members_get_tags.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides context (for a specific list member) but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. There are no references to sibling tools or exclusions, so usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 only states the purpose and does not mention read-only nature, authentication requirements, pagination, or return format, leaving the agent without important behavioral context.
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, well-structured sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context to select and invoke it. However, it lacks explicit notes on return values or behavior, which would be helpful given the absence of annotations.
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?
The schema covers campaign_id with a basic description, and schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('top-performing email domains for a campaign'), distinguishing it from sibling report tools like mailchimp_reports_get (general report) and mailchimp_reports_get_click_details (click-specific).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for domain-level performance analysis but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. It would benefit from noting that it's for domain-level breakdowns within a campaign report.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The word 'permanently' discloses that the action is irreversible, which is valuable given there are no annotations. However, the description does not mention other behavioral traits such as required permissions, impact on campaign statistics, or whether the operation can be performed on campaigns in any state. With no annotations, this is a partial disclosure.
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 short sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.
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?
For a simple delete operation with one fully documented parameter, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks contextual details such as whether deletion is soft or hard, side effects on related entities (e.g., reports, automations), and any permission requirements. The absence of an output schema means return behavior is also unaddressed, though that is often implicit for delete operations.
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?
The input schema fully describes the sole parameter 'campaign_id' as 'Campaign ID to delete', providing 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond confirming the resource type, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance parameter understanding.
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 'Permanently delete a campaign' clearly states the verb (delete) and resource (campaign), and the permanence adds specificity. It unambiguously differentiates this from other campaign-related tools in the sibling list, such as pause, archive, or schedule.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool or any alternatives, but the tool name and description make its purpose obvious. There are no sibling tools for deleting campaigns, so the usage context is implied. However, no exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., cannot delete sent campaigns) are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral effects, but it only says 'resume' without explaining what actually changes (e.g., status transition, scheduling behavior) or prerequisites beyond being paused. For a mutation tool, this is a significant transparency gap.
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?
A single, direct sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place, and the structure is optimally front-loaded.
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?
For a one-parameter tool without an output schema, the description conveys the essential action but omits details like what a successful resume does to the campaign status or possible error conditions. It is minimally sufficient but not rich.
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?
The schema already documents campaign_id with a clear description, and the tool description adds no further parameter meaning. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 verb 'resume' immediately conveys the action, and the object 'paused RSS campaign' specifies both the target and its state. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like pause, send, and schedule.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the precondition (campaign must be paused) and the campaign type (RSS), offering clear usage context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is narrow enough that this does not seem necessary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Add a new cart' and mentions abandoned cart tracking, but does not disclose side effects, duplicate ID behavior, required permissions, or response format. As a mutation tool, more transparency is needed.
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, front-loaded sentence: 'Add a new cart (for abandoned cart tracking)'. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition of schema information. It is appropriately sized for a simple create operation.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description is somewhat sparse. It captures the primary purpose and the schema fully documents the inputs, but it omits prerequisites (e.g., store must exist), return behavior, and error conditions. The clear purpose and complete schema keep it from being severely incomplete.
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?
The schema covers 100% of the 7 parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter-specific details; the 'abandoned cart tracking' context hints at why fields like order_total and checkout_url are relevant, but the schema already documents them fully.
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 states 'Add a new cart' with a clear verb and resource, and the parenthetical 'for abandoned cart tracking' specifies the domain. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like carts_update, carts_delete, or orders_add, which serve different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'for abandoned cart tracking' provides clear context on when to use this tool. It implies usage for creating carts to track abandoned checkouts, and the operation is distinct from update/delete/list siblings. However, it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternative tools 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.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states that 'delete' translates to 'unsubscribe and archive', which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., triggering automation, sending notifications), permissions required, or error conditions (e.g., member not found). The description is not misleading but is incomplete for full transparency.
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, compact sentence that front-loads the action ('Delete') and immediately clarifies scope in parentheses. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.
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?
The tool is simple (2 required parameters, no output schema), and the description states the core behavior. However, it does not explain return values or error handling, which is needed since there is no output schema. The absence of details like whether the member must already exist or how success is reported leaves a gap in completeness.
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 coverage is 100% with both parameters having descriptions ('List ID' and 'Email address to delete'). The tool description adds minimal extra meaning—'from a list' maps to list_id, and 'a member' maps to email_address—but does not enrich parameter understanding beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb 'Delete' and clarifies the operation as 'unsubscribe and archive', which precisely distinguishes it from sibling tools like mailchimp_members_archive (which only archives) and mailchimp_members_update (which updates). It clearly identifies the resource as 'a member from a list'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by explaining the deletion semantics (unsubscribe and archive), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. No mention of exclusions or conditions, such as if the member already exists or if the list is archived. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It accurately describes a read-only get operation, but does not disclose details such as auth requirements, error behavior, or what 'details' includes. Since it is a simple get and the description is not misleading, it meets the minimum viable standard but lacks added context.
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 concise sentence with no redundant information. It front-loads the action and resource, making it immediately clear what the tool does. This is appropriately sized and well-structured.
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's low complexity and full schema coverage, the description is adequate but minimal. There is no output schema, so the agent receives no information about the return value shape or error scenarios. While a get-by-ID tool may not need extensive context, the description could be slightly more informative about what details are returned.
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?
The input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (list_id and webhook_id), with 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema gives, so it earns the baseline score of 3.
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 'Get details for a specific webhook' clearly states the action (get) and the resource (webhook), with 'specific' distinguishing it from the sibling webhooks_list tool. This aligns with the 5-point criterion of specific verb+resource and 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 Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like webhooks_list. However, the 'specific webhook' phrasing implies use when you have an ID and need details for a single webhook. This is implied usage, not explicit guidance, so a score of 3 is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of conveying safety and behavior. 'Search' implies a read-only operation, and 'all campaigns' adds scope, but it does not explicitly disclose that no modifications occur, note rate limits, or detail response behavior. This is a moderate level of transparency for a search 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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and resource. It is concise and free of unnecessary words or repetition.
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?
For a simple search tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not mention the structure of the response or provide details about pagination beyond what the schema implies. Given the lack of an output schema, some additional context about return values would improve completeness.
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?
The input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (count, query, offset) with 100% coverage. The description adds only a generic mention of 'query terms,' which aligns with the query parameter but provides no additional semantic value beyond the schema.
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 a specific action (search) on a specific resource (all campaigns in the account) for query terms. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mailchimp_campaigns_list (which lists campaigns) and mailchimp_search_members (which searches members).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used when you need to find campaigns by keyword or phrase, which is distinct from listing all campaigns or getting a specific campaign. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it lacks a clear when-not-to-use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does clarify the limited scope to certain campaign types, which is useful, but it does not mention any limitations, prerequisites, or expected response behavior beyond the core 'get' action. For a read-only tool this is acceptable but minimal.
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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and immediately provides the key differentiator (campaign types). There is no filler or repetition of the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With only one simple parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and context. It could add a note about the return value being a list of sub-reports, but the core use case is clear. Given the low complexity, it is nearly complete.
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?
The input schema already provides 100% coverage with a clear description of campaign_id as 'Parent campaign ID'. The description adds no additional semantic meaning regarding the parameter, so it relies on the schema. The baseline of 3 applies due to full schema coverage.
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 specifies a clear action ('Get sub-reports') and resource, and distinguishes itself by naming the exact campaign types (multivariate, RSS, A/B test) that this tool applies to. This differentiates it from sibling tools like mailchimp_reports_get and mailchimp_reports_list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context by indicating the tool is only for multivariate, RSS, or A/B test campaigns, implying when it should be used. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use mailchimp_reports_get for standard campaigns,' so it falls short of full guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds useful behavioral context about when webhooks fire, but does not disclose other traits like whether creation is idempotent, permission requirements, or what the response contains.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the action ('Create a new webhook for a list'), no filler. Each sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple create operation with complete schema coverage, the description is adequate. It explains purpose and trigger semantics. No output schema exists, but the tool's behavior is straightforward enough that this isn't a major gap.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds high-level meaning to the events parameter by mentioning subscriber add/remove/info changes, but does not add detail beyond what the schema already provides.
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 'Create a new webhook for a list' with a specific verb and resource, and elaborates on what webhooks do (fire on subscriber add/remove/info changes). This distinguishes it from sibling operations like webhooks_update and webhooks_delete.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you want to set up a webhook to listen for subscriber events. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the create operation is unambiguous given sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and 'all webhooks' suggests no pagination, but it doesn't explicitly state read-only, pagination behavior, or potential errors. The description adds some value but is not richly transparent.
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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool does and what input is needed. It could have mentioned the return format explicitly, but the phrase 'get all webhooks' inherently conveys the output. No major gaps exist.
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 100%, so the schema already documents the only parameter (list_id). The description merely restates the parameter's purpose ('specific list/audience') without adding new semantic detail, earning the baseline score of 3.
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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'webhooks' scoped to a specific list/audience, distinguishing it from webhooks_get (which likely retrieves a single webhook) and other webhook operations. It fully communicates the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context that this tool is scoped to a list/audience, implying it is for fetching all webhooks for that list. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose a behavioral constraint (built-in fields cannot be deleted), but it does not mention whether deletion is permanent, whether it affects existing data, or any permission requirements. The note adds some value beyond the schema, but the deletion's permanence and impact are left implicit.
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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place; the note about built-in fields is concise and immediately relevant. There is no fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete tool with two well-described parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and a critical limitation. It doesn't describe what happens on success or failure, but for a delete operation the outcome is generally understood. The built-in field note adds important context that makes it reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying that the merge_id should refer to a custom field, not a built-in one. This goes beyond the schema's 'Merge field ID to delete' and helps the agent avoid invalid inputs.
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 action: 'Delete a merge field.' This is specific and uses a direct verb+resource combination. The additional note about built-in fields being excluded further clarifies the tool's scope, distinguishing it from other merge field operations like update or create.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a key usage guideline: built-in fields (EMAIL, FNAME, LNAME) cannot be deleted, implying this tool should only be used for custom merge fields. This gives a clear 'when not to use' context, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives like update for modifying fields.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mailchimp-mcp-2026-complete MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/BusyBee3333/mailchimp-mcp-2026-complete/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/BusyBee3333/mailchimp-mcp-2026-complete)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mailchimp-mcp-2026-complete MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/BusyBee3333/mailchimp-mcp-2026-complete/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/BusyBee3333/mailchimp-mcp-2026-complete)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/BusyBee3333/mailchimp-mcp-2026-complete'

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