@kieksme/listmonk-mcp

Delete Subscriber

listmonk_delete_subscriber

DestructiveIdempotent

Permanently deletes a single Listmonk subscriber by numeric ID, enabling cleanup of invalid or unwanted records.

Instructions

Permanently deletes a single subscriber by id.

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_delete_subscriber"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Numeric id.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.3.0Nov 4, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds one useful fact beyond them – the deletion is permanent/irreversible – but says nothing about cascade effects on list memberships or bounce records, or about behavior when the id does not exist.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the most important word ("Permanently") is placed early. It is efficient, though the terseness leaves no room for the cautions a destructive tool warrants.

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?

For a one-parameter destructive delete with full schema coverage and rich annotations, this is minimally adequate. Missing are the cascade/related-data effects and the not-found behavior, which an agent authorizing an irreversible operation would want to know.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single required id parameter, so the schema already documents it as a numeric id with a positive lower bound. The description's "by id" adds no format or sourcing detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 and resource ("Permanently deletes a single subscriber") and the scoping qualifier "single" implicitly separates it from the bulk siblings delete_subscribers_by_ids and delete_subscribers_by_query. It stops short of naming an alternative outright, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.

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 by the word "single" – an agent can infer this is the per-record path versus the bulk variants, but the description never states when to prefer it over delete_subscribers_by_query or blocklist_subscriber, nor any prerequisite or exclusion.

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

Deploy Server