Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Mailchimp MCP

Mailchimp MCP

by damientilman
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

get_template_folder

Read-only

Retrieve details for a template folder, including its name and count of templates, using the folder ID from list_template_folders.

Instructions

Retrieve details for a single template folder.

Use to confirm a folder's name and how many templates it contains. Use list_template_folders to discover folder IDs.

Args: folder_id: Template folder ID. Obtain from list_template_folders.

Returns: JSON with id, name, and count of templates in the folder.

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": {
      "folder_id": "<folder_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_template_folder"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
accountNo
folder_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.7.1

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool returns JSON with id, name, and template count, which is useful context beyond the annotations. No contradiction.

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 concise and well-structured, starting with the purpose, then usage guidance, followed by parameter and return descriptions. No unnecessary text.

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 retrieval tool with an output schema (mentioned but not shown), the description covers purpose, usage, key parameter, and return fields. It omits the account parameter but is otherwise complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents folder_id, explaining its purpose and source (list_template_folders). However, the optional account parameter is left undocumented, leaving a gap.

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 tool retrieves details for a single template folder, specifying it can confirm the folder's name and template count. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_template_folders and create_template_folder.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool (to confirm folder details) and directs users to list_template_folders for discovering folder IDs, providing clear guidance on alternatives.

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