Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Mailchimp MCP Server

Mailchimp MCP Server

by BusyBee3333
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

mailchimp_campaigns_update

Update Mailchimp campaign settings, including recipients, tracking, and configuration, to refine your email marketing campaigns.

Instructions

Update a campaign's settings

Tool call template

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

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

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
settingsNoUpdated campaign settings
trackingNoUpdated tracking settings
recipientsNoUpdated recipient settings
campaign_idYesCampaign ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools