Mailchimp MCP Server

mailchimp_templates_create

Create a new template using custom HTML and a name. Optionally assign a folder ID to organize the template.

Instructions

Create a new template

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "html": "<html>"
    },
    "name": "mailchimp_templates_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`html`	Yes	HTML content for the template
`name`	Yes	Template name
`folder_id`	No	Folder ID to store template in

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Create a new template,' which implies a mutation but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as permissions, side effects, reversibility, or what happens on duplicate names. This is similar to the update_drive example, which also scored 2.

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 short but under-specified. It is a single sentence that merely restates the tool name, so it does not earn its place by adding value. It is not a case of efficient conciseness but rather insufficient information.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain any operational context, return values, or behavioral nuances. The schema covers the parameters, but the description lacks essential context for a create operation, similar to the update_drive example.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (html, name, folder_id), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra semantic meaning to the parameters, but the schema already handles that.

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 ('Create') and resource ('a new template'), which is a specific verb+resource pair. It distinguishes from sibling tools like update or delete by the verb, but it adds no scope or additional context beyond the tool's 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It is entirely silent on usage context, earning a 'no guidance' score.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server