Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Mailchimp MCP Server

Mailchimp MCP Server

by BusyBee3333
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

mailchimp_webhooks_delete

Delete a webhook from a Mailchimp audience by providing list and webhook IDs. Prevents unwanted callback events and keeps integrations clean.

Instructions

Delete a webhook

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>",
      "webhook_id": "<webhook_id>"
    },
    "name": "mailchimp_webhooks_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
list_idYesList/audience ID
webhook_idYesWebhook ID to delete

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 states 'Delete a webhook' and does not mention that deletion is permanent, irreversible, or that it may have downstream effects on webhook events. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.

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, direct phrase with zero unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a simple delete operation and is front-loaded with the core action.

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?

While the tool is simple and the schema covers parameters, the description lacks any behavioral context such as permanence, error handling, or prerequisites. With no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse to be considered complete for an agent deciding whether to invoke it.

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 both list_id and webhook_id clearly described. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the baseline of 3 applies since the schema fully documents the parameters.

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 'Delete a webhook' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like webhook_create or webhook_update. It unambiguously states the tool's function.

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, prerequisites, or alternatives. The description simply states the action without contextualizing it relative to other webhook operations.

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