Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@kieksme/listmonk-mcp

@kieksme/listmonk-mcp

by kieksme
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Blocklist Subscriber

listmonk_blocklist_subscriber
DestructiveIdempotent

Blocklist a Listmonk subscriber by ID to prevent further campaign emails from being sent to them.

Instructions

Blocklists a single subscriber by id, preventing further campaign sends to them.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "listmonk_blocklist_subscriber"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesNumeric id.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.3.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful consequence that campaign sends are suppressed, but says nothing about reversibility (unblocking) or what happens if the id is already blocklisted or nonexistent.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the effect appended. No wasted wording.

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 one-parameter mutation with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and its main effect. Only the reversibility/edge-case behavior is missing, which is a minor gap at this complexity.

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 100% and the single 'id' parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description's 'by id' merely restates it without adding format or constraint detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (blocklists) and resource (a single subscriber) plus the effect (preventing campaign sends). The word 'single' implicitly distinguishes it from the bulk sibling, but it never names that sibling explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: 'single' hints that bulk operations should use listmonk_blocklist_subscribers_bulk, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives like delete_subscriber.

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