@kieksme/listmonk-mcp

Get Settings

listmonk_get_settings

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve Listmonk server settings, including SMTP, app configuration, privacy, and security, to review or audit your instance setup.

Instructions

Returns Listmonk's full server settings object (SMTP, app config, privacy, security, etc).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "listmonk_get_settings"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`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

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful content scope by naming the categories of settings returned, but says nothing about authorization requirements or that the payload includes sensitive values like SMTP credentials.

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 front-loaded sentence that identifies the returned object and its main sections with no filler. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully compensates by naming what the returned settings object contains. For a zero-required-parameter getter with full annotation coverage this is nearly complete; only the sensitivity of the returned data and its relationship to the update sibling is unstated.

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?

There is a single optional parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the enumeration values and default are fully documented in the schema. The description does not mention response_format at all, so it adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides — the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ("Returns Listmonk's full server settings object") and enumerates the contents (SMTP, app config, privacy, security). It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling listmonk_get_server_config, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as listmonk_get_server_config or listmonk_update_settings. The agent must infer that this is the read counterpart to the settings-update tool from the name alone.

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

Deploy Server