Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Mailchimp MCP Server

Mailchimp MCP Server

by BusyBee3333
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

mailchimp_lists_update_segment

Update an existing Mailchimp segment by modifying its name or conditions. Refine audience targeting within a specified list.

Instructions

Update a segment

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>",
      "segment_id": "<segment_id>"
    },
    "name": "mailchimp_lists_update_segment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoUpdated segment name
list_idYesList ID
optionsNoUpdated segment conditions
segment_idYesSegment ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.1/5.0
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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools