Mailchimp MCP Server

mailchimp_ecommerce_stores_update

Update a store's name, domain, currency code, and email address by providing its store ID. Keep e-commerce data accurate for effective Mailchimp campaigns.

Instructions

Update a store

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>"
    },
    "name": "mailchimp_ecommerce_stores_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	Updated store name
`domain`	No	Updated domain
`store_id`	Yes	Store ID
`currency_code`	No	Updated currency code
`email_address`	No	Updated email

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

C2.1/5.0

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.

Deploy Server