Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Mailchimp MCP

Mailchimp MCP

by damientilman
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

delete_file

DestructiveIdempotent

Irreversibly delete a file from the File Manager. Any campaigns or templates referencing the file will show broken images.

Instructions

Permanently delete a file from the File Manager.

Irreversible. Any campaign or template still referencing the file's hosted URL will show a broken image afterwards. Use list_files to find the file_id and get_file to confirm the target before deleting.

Args: file_id: File ID (numeric, as a string) from list_files.

Returns: JSON with status 'success' on deletion, or an error object if file_id is invalid.

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": {
      "file_id": "<file_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
accountNo
file_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.7.1

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint: true), the description adds critical behavioral details: irreversible action, consequence of broken images for referencing campaigns/templates, and return format. No contradiction with annotations.

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: purpose first, then warnings and instructions, then arguments and returns. It is concise with no fluff.

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?

Given the tool has two parameters and annotations for safety, the description covers usage flow, consequences, and return type. However, the undocumented account parameter and lack of output schema in the definition reduce completeness slightly.

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 description documents file_id with type and source (numeric string from list_files), but does not mention the optional account parameter, leaving a gap. Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate but only partially succeeds.

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 'Permanently delete a file from the File Manager.', which specifies the verb and resource. It also distinguishes from sibling delete tools by specifying the File Manager context.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description provides explicit guidance: 'Use list_files to find the file_id and get_file to confirm the target before deleting.' This tells the agent when and how to prepare for using this tool.

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