Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Mailchimp MCP

Mailchimp MCP

by damientilman
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

list_automation_removed_subscribers

Read-only

Retrieve subscribers removed from a classic automation workflow to identify who stopped receiving emails.

Instructions

List subscribers removed from a classic automation workflow.

Retrieves all subscribers who have been removed from the specified automation workflow. Removed subscribers no longer receive any emails in the workflow.

Args: workflow_id: The unique id of the classic automation workflow.

Returns: JSON with the list of removed subscribers.

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": {
      "workflow_id": "<workflow_id>"
    },
    "name": "list_automation_removed_subscribers"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
accountNo
workflow_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.7.1

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context that removed subscribers no longer receive emails, clarifying the behavioral implication beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Description is concise and structured with Args and Returns. One sentence is slightly redundant ('no longer receive any emails') but overall efficient.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity and presence of an output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned. However, the account parameter is undocumented, and the output schema reference is vague.

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

Parameters2/5

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 only mentions workflow_id in Args but ignores the account parameter, leaving its purpose unclear.

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 'list', the resource 'subscribers removed', and the context 'classic automation workflow', distinguishing it from sibling list tools.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_automation_removed_subscriber or list_automations. It does not mention exclusions or when not to use.

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