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

@kieksme/listmonk-mcp

by kieksme
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Get Mailing List

listmonk_get_list
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a single mailing list by ID, including its subscriber count, in markdown or JSON for reporting and automation.

Instructions

Retrieves a single mailing list by id, including its subscriber count.

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": {
      "list_id": "<list_id>"
    },
    "name": "listmonk_get_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
list_idYesNumeric id.
response_formatNoOutput format: 'markdown' for human-readable text (default) or 'json' for machine-readable data.markdown

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the response includes the subscriber count, which is useful return-shape context, but says nothing about not-found behavior or error semantics.

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 front-loaded sentence with the identifying action first and the notable output detail second. No filler or redundancy.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and complete annotations, this is nearly sufficient. The only meaningful gap is that with no output schema, the return shape is described only by the subscriber-count mention.

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%, with both list_id and response_format documented including the enum values, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description only restates 'by id' and adds no format or constraint detail beyond that.

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 mailing list by id') and adds the notable payload detail of subscriber count. It implicitly contrasts with list-style siblings via 'single', but never names listmonk_list_lists, so differentiation is left to inference.

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: an agent can infer this is for fetching one known list id rather than enumerating lists. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not clause, no mention of the list_lists alternative, and no guidance on what to do when the id is unknown.

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