Skip to main content
Glama
damientilman

Mailchimp MCP

create_interest_category

Create an interest category in a Mailchimp audience to organize subscriber preferences into groups like checkboxes or dropdowns.

Instructions

Create a new interest category (group container) in an audience for organizing subscriber preferences.

Use to create a container for interest options. Typical workflow: create_interest_category -> create_interest (add options within the category). The type controls how subscribers interact with it on signup forms. Use list_interest_categories to check existing categories first.

Authenticated via API key. Subject to Mailchimp API rate limits (max 10 concurrent requests). Respects read-only and dry-run modes.

Args: list_id: The Mailchimp audience/list ID (e.g. 'abc123def4'). Obtain from list_audiences. title: Display title for the category (e.g. 'Preferred Topics'). Must be unique within the audience. type: How the category appears on signup forms. Valid values: 'checkboxes' (subscribers can select multiple), 'dropdown' (single select), 'radio' (single select), 'hidden' (not shown on forms, managed via API only).

Returns: JSON with fields: id (string, use with create_interest, list_interests, delete_interest_category), title, type, list_id.

Example: create_interest_category(list_id="abc123", title="Newsletter Preferences", type="checkboxes") -> {"id": "cat456", "title": "Newsletter Preferences", "type": "checkboxes", ...}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
list_idYes
titleYes
typeYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses authentication (API key), rate limits (max 10 concurrent requests), mode behavior (read-only, dry-run), and uniqueness constraint on title. It also explains type semantics and return fields.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose sentence, workflow guidance, authentication details, parameter descriptions in an Args block, return format, and an example. Every part adds value without redundancy.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a creation tool with 3 parameters, the description covers prerequisites, workflow, parameter semantics, return values (including output schema fields), and example usage. It is complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds rich meaning to all three parameters: list_id (source, example), title (example, uniqueness), type (full explanation with valid values and UI behavior).

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 clearly states the verb 'create', the resource 'interest category' (group container in an audience), and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning a typical workflow involving create_interest and list_interest_categories.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides explicit workflow guidance (create_interest_category -> create_interest) and prerequisites (use list_interest_categories first). It also mentions authentication and rate limits, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/damientilman/mailchimp-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server