Mailchimp MCP Server

mailchimp_webhooks_get

Retrieve detailed information for a specific Mailchimp webhook by providing its webhook ID and the associated list ID.

Instructions

Get details for a specific 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_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`list_id`	Yes	List/audience ID
`webhook_id`	Yes	Webhook ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It accurately describes a read-only get operation, but does not disclose details such as auth requirements, error behavior, or what 'details' includes. Since it is a simple get and the description is not misleading, it meets the minimum viable standard but lacks added context.

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 with no redundant information. It front-loads the action and resource, making it immediately clear what the tool does. This is appropriately sized and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity and full schema coverage, the description is adequate but minimal. There is no output schema, so the agent receives no information about the return value shape or error scenarios. While a get-by-ID tool may not need extensive context, the description could be slightly more informative about what details are returned.

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 provides full descriptions for both parameters (list_id and webhook_id), with 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema gives, so it earns the baseline score of 3.

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 'Get details for a specific webhook' clearly states the action (get) and the resource (webhook), with 'specific' distinguishing it from the sibling webhooks_list tool. This aligns with the 5-point criterion of specific verb+resource and sibling differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like webhooks_list. However, the 'specific webhook' phrasing implies use when you have an ID and need details for a single webhook. This is implied usage, not explicit guidance, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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

Deploy Server