Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Mailchimp MCP Server

Mailchimp MCP Server

by BusyBee3333
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

mailchimp_webhooks_update

Update an existing Mailchimp webhook by specifying a new callback URL, event triggers, and source settings for a list ID.

Instructions

Update an existing 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_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNoUpdated webhook URL
eventsNoUpdated event triggers
list_idYesList/audience ID
sourcesNoUpdated source triggers
webhook_idYesWebhook ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only restates the action ('Update an existing webhook') and provides no information about side effects, permissions, idempotency, or error behavior.

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 only four words, which makes it highly concise, but it is under-specified for a tool with a nested 5-parameter schema. While front-loaded, it is not appropriately sized; it should provide more context to be useful.

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?

Given the complexity of the tool (5 parameters, nested objects) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the one-line description is severely inadequate. It fails to explain how to use the tool, the purpose of required fields, or what the response entails.

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 provides full descriptions for all 5 parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. The baseline score of 3 applies since the schema already handles parameter documentation.

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 uses a clear verb ('Update') and specifies the resource ('existing webhook'), distinguishing it from webhooks_create and webhooks_delete. However, it does not elaborate on scope or specific updatable fields, so it stops short of being fully descriptive.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mailchimp_webhooks_create or mailchimp_webhooks_delete. No prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual hints are provided.

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