Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Mailchimp MCP Server

Mailchimp MCP Server

by BusyBee3333
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

mailchimp_reports_get_email_activity

Retrieve email activity for a subscriber in a campaign by providing campaign ID and email address.

Instructions

Get activity for a specific subscriber in a campaign

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>",
      "email_address": "<email_address>"
    },
    "name": "mailchimp_reports_get_email_activity"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
campaign_idYesCampaign ID
email_addressYesSubscriber email address

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
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 restates the purpose and gives no information about the nature of the activity (e.g., opens, clicks), read-only status, permissions, or response format. This is a minimal disclosure that leaves the agent guessing about the tool's behavior.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word serves the purpose, with zero wasted verbiage.

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 having only 2 parameters, the lack of annotations and output schema means the description must explain what 'activity' means and what the caller can expect. It does neither, leaving significant ambiguity about the tool's output and scope.

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% and both parameters are described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but since the schema already documents campaign_id and email_address, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Get'), the resource ('activity'), and the scope ('for a specific subscriber in a campaign'), which matches the tool name precisely. It is specific enough to distinguish from broader report tools like mailchimp_reports_get and member-level activity tools.

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 such as mailchimp_reports_get_open_details or mailchimp_members_get_activity. The description implies a specific use case but does not state exclusions or alternatives.

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