@kieksme/listmonk-mcp

Get Campaign

listmonk_get_campaign

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch a single Listmonk campaign by its numeric ID, with options to omit the message body and choose Markdown or JSON output.

Instructions

Retrieves a single campaign 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_get_campaign"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Numeric id.
`no_body`	No
`response_format`	No	Output format: 'markdown' for human-readable text (default) or 'json' for machine-readable data.	markdown

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.3.0Nov 4, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, so the bar is lower, but the description adds nothing on top of them. It does not mention the optional no_body flag's effect, what format content comes back in, or whether a missing/invalid id errors versus returns empty, all of which would be useful context for a read tool.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no wasted wording. Nothing to trim.

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 simple single-record read with rich annotations and no output schema, the core is adequate, but the undocumented no_body parameter and the absence of any note on what the returned campaign contains leave a real gap. Acceptable but not complete.

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 67% with id and response_format documented, but the no_body boolean has no description anywhere. The description says only 'by id' and does not explain what suppressing the body does, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap on a parameter that changes the returned payload materially.

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 ('Retrieves a single campaign') and scopes it to one record via 'by id', which implicitly separates it from listmonk_list_campaigns. It does not address the other campaign-read siblings such as listmonk_get_campaign_preview or listmonk_get_campaign_analytics, which is the only thing keeping it below a 5.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternatives. An agent must infer from the name alone whether to call this vs listmonk_list_campaigns (fetch all) or listmonk_get_campaign_preview (render content) when looking for campaign content.

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

Deploy Server