Mailchimp MCP Server

mailchimp_lists_get_interests

Retrieve all interests (group names) for a given interest category in a Mailchimp list. Use list ID and category ID to fetch the full set of grouped interests.

Instructions

Get all interests (group names) in a specific interest category

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": {
      "list_id": "<list_id>",
      "category_id": "<category_id>"
    },
    "name": "mailchimp_lists_get_interests"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`count`	No	Number of records to return
`offset`	No	Number of records to skip
`list_id`	Yes	List ID
`category_id`	Yes	Interest category ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

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.

Deploy Server