Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
EmailOctopus MCP Server

EmailOctopus MCP Server

by OfirOhan
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

List mailing lists

list_lists
Read-only

Retrieve all EmailOctopus mailing lists with contact counts to audit audiences or find a list before managing contacts.

Instructions

List all mailing lists with their contact counts.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_lists"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoPage size, 1-100
starting_afterNoCursor from a previous response's paging.next.starting_after

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful return context ('with their contact counts'), but says 'List all' without noting that results are paginated via limit/starting_after, which is a mild mismatch with real 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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every clause (scope, contact counts) earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description conveys scope and the headline return attribute. It omits any hint about pagination being required to retrieve everything, which is the only meaningful gap.

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 (limit, starting_after) are documented in the schema, so the description carries no parameter burden. It adds nothing about paging semantics beyond what the schema already states, which is the expected baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List all mailing lists') and adds the returned attribute ('with their contact counts'), which separates it from list_contacts and list_campaigns by resource. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use for other listing needs, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 when-to-use statement, no prerequisite, and no reference to alternatives such as get_list (single list) or list_contacts. The agent must infer that this tool is the unfiltered enumeration of lists.

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