Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Mailchimp MCP Server

Mailchimp MCP Server

by BusyBee3333
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

mailchimp_ecommerce_carts_get

Fetch details of a specific Mailchimp ecommerce cart using store ID and cart ID.

Instructions

Get information about a specific cart

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": {
      "store_id": "<store_id>",
      "cart_id": "<cart_id>"
    },
    "name": "mailchimp_ecommerce_carts_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cart_idYesCart ID
store_idYesStore ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description 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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools